India and the United States
Accidental or Inevitable Antagonists
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11069064 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Philip Oldenburg (Columbia University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1988 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 220-229 |
| Publication date | 1988-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Asian Affairs An American Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0092-7678 • E-ISSN: 1940-1590 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/00927678.1988.10553631 |
| OpenAlex | W2312721060 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
t he relationship between India and the United States has been, sad to say, more often one of a tagonism than of friendship. If relations are to improve, we must understand how deep seated that antagonism is. An accidental antagonism is almost by definition easily resolved by the actions of persons of good will. Difficulties arose, this view runs, because of it-might-have-been-otherwise events-Richard Nixon's getting upset by his treatment in Delhi when he was at the nadir of his political career after his defeat in the 1962 California gubernatorial election, Krishna Menon's particularly irritating manners, and the like. Small matters that have been blown out of proportion can quickly be brought back into perspective once sensible politicians and officials set to work. Inevitable antagonisms, on the other hand, implydthat the conflict is more deep seated, and that solutions will be beyond the capacity of the particular governments but must await a changed situation. The dissolving of the antagonism will occur when long-term changes occur, and solutions emerge. In this view-which I share (though perhaps not in the extreme form presented here for the purposes of stimulating discussion)-there are fundamental divergences of interests and world-view that keep India and the United States apart and explain the surface-level, often trivial, disagreements and conflictual policies. There are many layers to the India-U.S. relationship, which I somewhat arbitrarily examine from three angles: geopolitical, economic, and sociocultural/personal. My strategy of exploration is archaeological: I consider the surface layers first and proceed to deeper, more fundamental ones
Development economics · Economics · Geopolitics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Indian Economic and Social Development · Law · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · South Asian Studies and Conflicts
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,06 |
| Citation span | 2009 - 2009 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |