To quote Collingwood, "the only clue to what a man can do is what a man has done."2 trained historians, @Rabs_AA and @tanvi_madan engaged in a wide-ranging conversation on the "Fateful Triangle" plus many an actor. Thread to follow.
Reminiscing their first meeting at a dialogue involving Indian and Pakistani scholars, Dr. Madan highlighted how such initiatives helped and help analysts up their games and broaden their horizons. Both agreed that more interactions between South Asian scholars are needed.
Talking about the main thesis of her new,seminal book, Dr.Madan succinctly traced how New Delhi and Washington oscillated from differing over goals to differing over means ,and from a tight embrace to cooperating gingerly over the Beijing "threat ".
Dr.Madan argued that her book brings out the centrality of the China factor in US-Indo relations during the Cold War, to the fore. It indeed is not a recent phenomenon.
Dr.Madan contended that book is an attempt to highlight the value of history or the 'historical baggage ' in understanding and making sense of what is happening today. History, she enunciated, tells that the Sino-US concerted push is neither inevitable nor impossible.
Divided into 4 parts ,the book, she told viewers, amplified how being on the same page in regard China did not always lead to robust US-Indo ties given that there were differences over the means to deal with that country.
She also talked about the periods where ties hit a nadir and when New Delhi was way down Washington's priority ladder ,for China's factor became less pronounced.
Dr. Madan deftly ensconced and contextualised the nonalignment vs diversification debate along with its associated merits and demerits.
The link that she established between a state's ability to diversify and its importance for other actors is quite instructive and applicable.
The link that she established between a state's ability to diversify and its importance for other actors is quite instructive and applicable.
Pakistan was and continues to remain an important cog that affects the triangle, although the whys and hows have changed. This is one of the lessons that one can learn by comparing the role of Pakistan during 49-79 and what it is like today.
On Ladakh, while terming the situation dangerous, she showed caution in analysing lucidly so long as more information is unavailable.The reasons as to why she dubbed the Ladakh standoff incendiary are more important to dabble into rather than concoct parallels with Kargil !
There were interesting thoughts brought to the table regarding India's concerns about CPEC , a project that is seen as one that is likely to provide a fillip to the even-otherwise strong Sino-Pak ties. According to Dr.Madan ,CPEC is seen as part of the whole Sino-Pak gamut .
Her pt on how increased Chinese stakes in Pak could add another dimension to Indo-Pak crises while precipitously raising China's role, something that causes discomfiture to officials in DC . This is a good topic for further disquisitions and research.
While answering a question on India's role in Afghanistan, Dr. Madan said there is no question of India putting boots on ground in Afghanistan. India realized that parties had switched sides and approaches towards the Taliban if when compared with the 1990s.
@threadreaderapp unroll.
