The Hindu: Published on 1st August 2025.
Why in News?
Structural cracks have begun to surface in what was once hailed as a defining strategic partnership of the 21st century between India and the United States. Although official narratives remain upbeat, a growing strain is visible due to diverging nationalisms, foreign policy frictions, and differences in strategic priorities, particularly under the leadership of President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Background:
The India-U.S. relationship has evolved significantly since the nuclear standoff of Pokhran II in 1998, gradually transforming into a multi-sectoral strategic partnership covering defense, trade, energy, technology, and space.
Since 2005, after the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, bilateral ties have largely remained on an upward trajectory.
However, growing nationalism in both countries and a more assertive foreign policy by India under Modi, coupled with America First ideology under Trump, have exposed long-brewing tensions.
Key Issues:
a) Strategic Divergences
U.S. sees India’s increasing assertiveness and strategic autonomy as difficult to manage within a Western-led alliance system.
India’s ties with Russia, Iran, and participation in BRICS are viewed suspiciously by U.S. strategists.
b) Nationalist Priorities
The foreign policies of both countries are increasingly shaped by domestic nationalist sentiments (India First vs America First), limiting flexibility and mutual understanding.
c) Trade and Market Friction
U.S. dissatisfaction over India’s closed markets and protectionist policies has intensified, with Trump demanding more market access.
India, focusing on Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliance), is cautious about full-scale liberalization.
d) Defense and Security Misalignment
India’s policy of retaliatory military strikes against terrorism worries U.S. policymakers fearing nuclear escalation, especially with Pakistan.
U.S. re-engagement with Pakistan as a counterterrorism partner raises red flags in India.
e) Geopolitical Balancing
India’s policy of maintaining ties with both Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Iran, BRICS and QUAD — while globally unique — is seen as too flexible by American policymakers demanding clearer alignments.
4. Stakeholders:
Government of India (led by PM Modi, MEA Jaishankar)
U.S. Administration (President Trump, State Department, Senators like Lindsay Graham)
Strategic Think Tanks (e.g., Ashley Tellis, think tanks in DC)
Defence and Trade Industries in both countries
Regional players: Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran
Multilateral Groupings: BRICS, QUAD
5. Implications:
For India:
May have to recalibrate foreign policy posture to avoid isolation from Western powers while maintaining autonomy.
Could face delays in defense cooperation, tech transfer, and trade deals.
Risk of greater pressure on India over its Russia-Iran ties and domestic policy direction (human rights, democracy).
For the U.S.:
Risks losing a key democratic ally in Asia amid competition with China.
Strategic decoupling could push India closer to multipolar alliances, reducing U.S. influence.
Globally:
Signals a more complex and multipolar world order, with no straightforward alignments.
Could open space for China to increase influence in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific.
6. Way Forward:
Honest strategic dialogue is needed between both nations to align expectations.
India must balance strategic autonomy with strategic clarity to retain trust.
The U.S. must recognize that multipolar diplomacy is India’s necessity, not a betrayal.
New frameworks for cooperation beyond zero-sum alliances may help preserve the partnership.
Conclusion: