• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• Publicationsclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2022-2022close
• DK close
• Danish close

In this paper we use the case of Nepal to advance political geographic analyses of how, during moments of rupture, territory act as an important political technology in state restructuring, and how urban demarcation along with other territorial structures of the state will play a significant role in this process. Nepal has experi- enced more than three decades of state-restructuring characterized by consecutive political and constitutional crises, including close to ten years of violent conflict. Within the brief period between 2014 and 2017, more than 230 new municipalities were demarcated on top of the existing 58. In our analysis we unpack why and how the number of municipalities is quadrupled at that particular moment of time and how this is shaped by and have implications for re-configurations of Nepal’s territorial structures. This is achieved through a historical analysis of how the state’s politico-administrative system has been mapped, reasoned and challenged. The analysis is based on official documents, such as census data and reports, legislative acts, public debates and academic analyses of processes of administrative and political reforms and conflicts in Nepal since the early 1990s. It therefore engages with a rich literature on conflict, the post-conflict situation and the restructuring of the state. Based on our findings we argue that urban demarcation is an important part of a states’ political technology complex, and warn against trends in studies of urbanization to question the analytical bearing of differentiating the rural and urban. Showing that Nepal’s recent urban boundaries have been justified by the need to achieve a better geographical balance, we conclude by arguing for the need for studies of urban transformations that critically examine whether and how the new territoria

This paper examines how Russian President Vladimir Putin incorporates the use of history in his speeches and articles with regards to how he positions Russia in its relation to Ukraine. The analysis is structured around three central places of remembrance (danish: erindringssteder): The Kyivan Rus which focuses on the close historical relation between Ukraine and Russia; the heritage of the Sovietunion in relation to how the union defined the borders of Soviet-Ukraine; World War II, ukrainian nationalism and its relation to nazism which centers around how Putin relates nazism to the current ukrainian political elite. The analysis concludes that Putin primarily utilizes the three places of remembrance to legitimize Russia's current invasion of Ukraine. Putin finds the distribution of territories during the soviet era to have been theft, and a complete violation of Russia's integrity. Furthermore, he seeks to protect ethnic russians within the borders of Ukraine from a genocide, instigated by ukrainian nationalists and neo-nazis, who continue the tradition of atrocities commited during World War II. Finally, Putin perceives Ukrainians and Russians as a single people, basing his claim on common history, language, and culture. Thus he implies that ukrainians should unite under Russia, as Russia is the more legitimate state.