top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 9:59:04 pm

Hidden Questions

For six years, the Disha Salian case has remained trapped in a fog of unanswered questions, disputed narratives and institutional inaction. It appears that the fog is now finally beginning to lift. The CBI’s recent FIR has brought into the investigation a startling array of names including Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and MLA Aaditya Thackeray, his father, Sena (UBT) chief and former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, Dino Morea, Sooraj Pancholi, Rhea Chakraborty, Sachin Vaze, Param Bir Singh, and...

Hidden Questions

For six years, the Disha Salian case has remained trapped in a fog of unanswered questions, disputed narratives and institutional inaction. It appears that the fog is now finally beginning to lift. The CBI’s recent FIR has brought into the investigation a startling array of names including Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and MLA Aaditya Thackeray, his father, Sena (UBT) chief and former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, Dino Morea, Sooraj Pancholi, Rhea Chakraborty, Sachin Vaze, Param Bir Singh, and former home minister Anil Deshmukh. The allegations being investigated include conspiracy, destruction or suppression of evidence and an alleged attempt to establish a false narrative around Salian’s death. For Aaditya and the MVA, the instinctive political response will be to dub the CBI’s fresh probe as ‘vendetta’ and portray the investigation as an assault on the Thackeray family. But such a response would evade the much larger question of why this case was allowed to remain where it was for so long? At the very least, the filing of the FIR against the Thackerays’ and others lays bare the failure on part of the erstwhile MVA government headed by Uddhav Thackeray to properly investigate the case. This aspect cannot be wished away now by invoking political persecution as the Bombay High Court’s intervention has itself exposed the extraordinary manner in which the matter was handled. For years, Salian’s death remained an accidental-death case rather than being subjected to the kind of criminal investigation demanded by the allegations surrounding it. Her family has repeatedly sought a CBI probe only to be rebuffed by the previous Maharashtra government headed by Uddhav Thackeray. If the Thackeray-led MVA government had nothing to fear, why was a transparent investigation not pursued with greater urgency? If there was no attempt to protect anyone, why were questions about the circumstances of Salian’s death allowed to accumulate rather than being conclusively answered? And if there was no political sensitivity involved, why did the machinery of government appear so reluctant to let an independent agency examine the matter? The more aggressively the Opposition cries “vendetta,” the more obvious another question becomes: what exactly is it afraid the investigation might uncover? Aaditya Thackeray’s political inheritance cannot become an institutional exemption. Being Balasaheb Thackeray’s grandson may provide a formidable political surname; it cannot provide immunity from scrutiny. The CBI must be allowed to pursue every lead, examine every witness, reconstruct every missing link and establish the truth as to what happened to Disha Salian. If the allegations against anyone are false, the investigation should establish that too. But if wrongdoing has occurred, then those responsible must face the consequences. After six years, neither political power nor a famous surname can be allowed to stand between the investigation and the truth.

A Fantastic Illusion

May 20
3 min read

Trump’s Beijing summit revealed less a thaw in Sino-American rivalry than a quiet acknowledgement that the balance of power is shifting eastward.

When Donald Trump recently left Beijing calling his summit with Xi Jinping “fantastic,” the pageantry suggested a diplomatic breakthrough. Yet, the summit produced few major agreements, while exposing how sharply the balance between the world’s two largest powers has changed.


For decades America approached China as the stronger power - confident that Beijing’s rise would eventually bend towards American preferences. This summit suggested the reverse. China no longer negotiated as a cautious challenger seeking legitimacy from Washington. It behaved as a superpower certain of its leverage and increasingly willing to dictate the boundaries of engagement.


Shift in Tone

The most significant outcome was an unmistakable shift in tone and balance. Beijing entered the talks from a position of relative confidence, strengthened by its grip over supply chains, rare-earth minerals and industrial manufacturing. Washington, meanwhile, arrived seeking stability rather than confrontation. The result was a one-year pause in tariff escalation and a modest easing of Chinese restrictions on rare-earth exports.


Trump framed even these limited gains as evidence of successful deal-making. In keeping with his transactional worldview, the summit revolved heavily around commerce. The prospect of China purchasing 200 Boeing aircraft was heralded as proof that American business still commanded Chinese demand. Yet beyond such announcements, concrete trade progress remained elusive. Agricultural issues lingered unresolved; semiconductor restrictions remained firmly in place; and the deeper technological war between the two countries continued unabated.


Indeed, the summit exposed the paradox at the heart of Sino-American relations. The two powers remain economically interdependent while strategically distrustful. America continues to restrict advanced artificial-intelligence and semiconductor exports to China, fearing that technological supremacy will determine the future military balance. China, meanwhile, uses its dominance in critical minerals and manufacturing as strategic counterweight. Both economies require one another, yet both increasingly prepare for a future in which coexistence may become more difficult.


Taiwan Tensions

Nowhere was this tension more apparent than over Taiwan. For Beijing, Taiwan remains the unfinished business of the Chinese civil war and an inseparable part of national territory. For Washington, the island is simultaneously a democratic partner, a strategic buffer and a test of American credibility in Asia. Xi Jinping reportedly warned against any American “double policy” on Taiwan, signalling Beijing’s impatience with Washington’s strategic ambiguity.


Trump, characteristically, avoided definitive commitments. China views continued American military support for Taiwan as direct interference; America sees Chinese military pressure as destabilising coercion. The summit reduced neither suspicion nor tension. It merely suspended open escalation.


Even the discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and Iran revealed the emerging asymmetry between the two powers. Washington increasingly hopes Beijing might restrain Tehran because China possesses economic and diplomatic influence that America often lacks. Beijing benefits from stability in the Gulf because its economy depends heavily upon Middle Eastern energy supplies. Yet China remains careful not to bind itself too closely to American strategic objectives. It prefers flexibility over alliance, influence over entanglement.


Chinese commentators quickly interpreted the summit as a diplomatic victory. They were not entirely wrong. Beijing succeeded in projecting calm authority while conceding little of strategic significance. It reinforced its red lines on Taiwan, preserved access to global markets and extracted a temporary trade truce without surrendering its technological ambitions. China demonstrated discipline; America appeared eager merely to avoid deterioration.


That does not mean America is in irreversible decline. The United States still possesses formidable structural advantages. Its nominal GDP remains substantially larger than China’s. American universities, technology firms and military alliances continue to shape the international system. Predictions of imminent Chinese supremacy remain premature.


Yet power in geopolitics is measured not only by economic aggregates, but by confidence, momentum and perception. In Beijing, China appeared increasingly convinced that time favours its rise. America, by contrast, seemed preoccupied with managing decline relative to its once-unquestioned primacy.


The summit therefore symbolised the uneasy arrival of a genuinely multipolar world in which Washington can no longer assume automatic dominance and Beijing no longer conceals its ambitions behind caution. The era when China waited patiently for acceptance into an American-led order is ending. China now seeks to reshape that order itself.


The smiles and ceremonies obscured a harsher reality: the rivalry between the Eagle and the Dragon has merely entered a more sophisticated phase.


Diplomacy can postpone confrontation. It cannot erase the forces driving it. The Beijing summit was therefore “fantastic” only in the theatrical sense of the word.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page