{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03330557868442964, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033305578684429643, 'mean_word_length': 5.5683060109289615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Revisiting Nehruvian Asianism in the Contemporary Asian Reality

Taking the legacies of colonialism and non-alignment of post colonial Asian countries, Nehru’s ‘Asianism’ ushered the solidarity of the Asian countries to promote peace and fashion a normative international order. His foreseeing of Asian prosperity through the ideology of ‘Asianism’ has to a large extent taken a commendable shape in the twenty-first century Asianism, where China and India have become the most powerful players. But ‘Asianism’ in reality has not been contemplated holistically in contemporary Asianism, because solidarity, growth and prosperity of Asianism have not been uniform. Taking the analogy of H.J. Mackinder’s ‘Heartland’ theory of 1904, while South, Southeast and East Asia represent the ‘heartland’ of current Asia, West and Central Asia even today remain stagnant, infested with disunity, militancy, religious fundamentalism and are victims of regional and extra-regional powers’ diplomatic game plan. Hence, normative Asianism should also bear the onus where the qualitative benchmark of Asia’s contemporary ‘heartland’ needs to catalyse the stagnant Asia to prosper, for the larger ideals of ‘Asianism’.