Interview – Astha Chadha |
This interview is part of a series of interviews with academics and practitioners at an early stage of their career. The interviews discuss current research and projects, as well as advice for other early career scholars.
Dr. Astha Chadha is an Associate Professor at the College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto and is also working as an adjunct lecturer at Doshisha Women’s College (Kyoto) and Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (Beppu). Her research focuses on South Asian security, Japan-India relations, gender security in the Indo-Pacific, and religion in global politics. She is the Communications Chair for ISA’s Religion and International Relations section, Regional Research Associate at the Indo-Pacific Studies Center (Australia), Women, Peace and Security Fellow at Pacific Forum (Hawaii). She is the author of Faith and Politics in South Asia (Routledge: 2024). Her article, The Ghost of Gandhi, was the winner of the 2025 E-International Relations Article Award.
Where do you see the most exciting research/debates happening in your field?
Honestly, it is a fascinating time to be involved in International Relations (IR). Whether we are talking about security studies, foreign policy, or pushing the discipline into new theoretical territory, there is so much happening. But what really excites me are the debates around post-Western epistemology and Global IR, especially how religion and IR intersect. These discussions challenge the long-standing Eurocentric, Westphalian models that have dominated the field, pushing us to rethink how we understand history, worldview, and knowledge itself. For example, the move toward post-Western IR theory is reshaping core concepts like “state,” “sovereignty,” “rationality,” and “anarchy.” Instead of seeing them as fixed, Western-derived ideas, scholars are exploring how different cultural and historical experiences could enrich or even redefine these concepts—trying to move them from a European-centric context to something more universal. I have been delving into non-Western cosmologies lately, which offer fresh lenses for understanding global order—sometimes challenging mainstream narratives that overlook diverse voices.
I also find the interplay between IR and religion deeply compelling. It pushes the field to question its secular, rationalist biases and consider ideas like spiritual power or long-term civilizational histories as legitimate components of theory. In my book Faith and Politics in South Asia, I introduced the idea of “exegesis”—which I see as interpreting religion as a form of historical discourse—showing how religious narratives influence state identity, collective memory, and international relations.
Another exciting front is how scholars are exploring concept like spectrality and hauntology. How past fears, traumas, and even non-human actors shape our present is an interesting topic to ponder on. For instance, the article “Ghost of Gandhi” uses hauntology to examine how Gandhi’s legacy continues to influence today’s politics, long after his time. This area is revealing that IR is often haunted by its own colonial and violent histories. It reminds us that “stable” times are often illusionary and that conflicts are cycles rooted in unresolved past injustices. It is an ethical call to see contemporary conflicts as echoes of historical pain, not isolated incidents.
How has the way you understand the world changed over time, and what (or who) prompted the most significant shifts in your thinking?
My journey has been a process of unlearning and challenging deeply ingrained assumptions. Early on, my understanding was shaped by mainstream IR theories — focused on rational choice, strategic balances, and states as the primary actors. But I soon realized these frameworks could not fully explain the power dynamics I saw, especially in South Asia, where religion and local histories play a huge role. I also struggled with the secular assumptions of IR. Concepts like the church-state nexus or faith-based movements did not fit neatly into the existing models. That led me to question: Who really defines a state’s interests? Where and how do those interests situate non-human security? I found myself thinking: why is there too much focus in IR on finding or defining an ordered and predictable world, when the observable international system seems quite chaotic with too many undefined variables?
I am constantly looking at theory and then finding it at odds with my observations — that has opened doors for future research. I continue to study the affective force and the role of belief over interests, of deep historical resentment fuelling conflicts, and most importantly, the secular bias and historical amnesia embedded within mainstream IR. That crisis led me to the works of several scholars including those I had the opportunity to connect with at ISA’s Religion and IR Section. I have also been very interested in post-colonial thought and the influence of certain world leaders on international politics: one of those is M.K. Gandhi. Reading Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha (the force of truth) and Ahimsa (non-violence) forced me to confront the existence of ethical and spiritual power as a form of agency that transcends military might or economic power and operates on very different realm of self-suffering, truth-seeking, and moral conviction. This contradicts, in many ways, the basic assumptions of IR. Similarly, there is an element of misinterpretation of caste in Gandhi’s writings and has been discussed extensively by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. So, while Gandhi pushes the security discourse towards introspection and self-reflection, Ambedkar questions its applicability and its grounding in romanticization of the anti-colonial struggle; Ambedkar posits that not always a fight for justice is a just fight, and that the oppressed can also be oppressors.
This, in fact, prompted my interest further into religion and IR, and how worldviews are constructed and shaped. This also led me to research further on how we can conceptualize ideals of “truth”, “non-violence” or “justice” as active political forces that in fact operate through very specific and sacred language and history. These then become political forces that can reformulate the international system as a moral/ethical battleground haunted by the........