Hypermasculine War Games: Triangulating US-India-China

Abstract

Triangulation discourse perpetuates a hypermasculine war game that is also colonizing in nature. Participation in and complicity with this model of international relations relegate the postcolonial state to a position of subaltern "mimicry" that aims, constantly, to demonstrate its national "manhood," so to speak. We need to change not just "the rules" but also "the game" altogether. We can begin by recognizing other relations, traditions, and ways of being. We focus on USIndiaChina relations as an example.

The wisdom of the road

“…The compare-contrast and deficit-competition hall of mirrors notwithstanding, a growing body of work is shifting the contours of India-China scholarship. To begin with, this scholarship illustrates how the history of research along this trajectory—on China and India in general and on their relations in particular—is longer and more substantive than commonly recognized (see Banerjee and Ling, 2010; Deshpande, 2001; Duara, 1995, 2010b; Farooqui, 2006; Ling, 2013; Rahman, 2002; Tan, 1998, 1999). And, despite the many episodes of diplomatic strains over several decades following 1962, scholars in India have managed to sustain a deep interest in understanding China’s development, culture, politics, and literature (see Acharya 2008, 2009; Acharya and Deshpande 2003; Agarwal, 2007; Banerjee, 2016; Banerjee and Ling, 2010; Duara, 1988; Ghosh, 1995; Tan, 1999, 2002; Thakur, 1996).…”

“…To begin with, this scholarship illustrates how the history of research along this trajectory—on China and India in general and on their relations in particular—is longer and more substantive than commonly recognized (see Banerjee and Ling, 2010; Deshpande, 2001; Duara, 1995, 2010b; Farooqui, 2006; Ling, 2013; Rahman, 2002; Tan, 1998, 1999). And, despite the many episodes of diplomatic strains over several decades following 1962, scholars in India have managed to sustain a deep interest in understanding China’s development, culture, politics, and literature (see Acharya 2008, 2009; Acharya and Deshpande 2003; Agarwal, 2007; Banerjee, 2016; Banerjee and Ling, 2010; Duara, 1988; Ghosh, 1995; Tan, 1999, 2002; Thakur, 1996). 4 More significantly, this work conveys an emphasis on understanding the historical links, interactions, and even conflicts to gain nuanced insights on how India and China related to each other both in the postcolonial context and in the pre-Westphalian world order before the hegemony of modern, colonizing categories of political analysis made an appearance (see Banerjee and Ling, 2010; Lal, 2009; Tan, 1998).…”

“…And, despite the many episodes of diplomatic strains over several decades following 1962, scholars in India have managed to sustain a deep interest in understanding China’s development, culture, politics, and literature (see Acharya 2008, 2009; Acharya and Deshpande 2003; Agarwal, 2007; Banerjee, 2016; Banerjee and Ling, 2010; Duara, 1988; Ghosh, 1995; Tan, 1999, 2002; Thakur, 1996). 4 More significantly, this work conveys an emphasis on understanding the historical links, interactions, and even conflicts to gain nuanced insights on how India and China related to each other both in the postcolonial context and in the pre-Westphalian world order before the hegemony of modern, colonizing categories of political analysis made an appearance (see Banerjee and Ling, 2010; Lal, 2009; Tan, 1998). The interpretation of the 1962 border war as a residuum of colonial rule, biopolitics, and cartography, that subsequently got incorporated into Cold War politics, for example, indicates an assertion not commonplace in mainstream analyses of the war’s much longer pre-independence geo-political context (Banerjee, 2007).…”