When news broke of Sergio Gor’s appointment as the next U.S. Ambassador to India, reactions within India’s strategic and diplomatic community were far from routine. Ambassadors, even those seen as political appointees, are typically evaluated based on their diplomatic background, their track record in managing international relations, and their ability to serve as a bridge between governments. What makes Mr. Gor’s case unusual, even unprecedented, is his dual role: not only as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to India but also as Special Representative for South and Central Asia.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to India. This is the official title for a full ambassador who represents their country (here, the U.S.) in India. The ambassador has the authority to act on behalf of their government in diplomatic matters with India. “Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary” indicates that this ambassador has full powers to negotiate and sign agreements with the host country.
Special Representative for South and Central Asia. In addition to serving as the ambassador to India, this person is also appointed as a special envoy responsible for a broader region, South Asia and Central Asia. This means the diplomat has additional duties beyond India, dealing with neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and nations in Central Asia. This role often involves managing U.S. policy and relations in the larger region, sometimes with a mandate to oversee regional diplomatic and strategic initiatives.
In essence, the individual has the regular, formal role of ambassador to India plus an expanded regional responsibility that goes beyond typical ambassadorial duties. This combination is unusual and signals an enlarged scope of influence and coordination for U.S. policy in South and Central Asia.
In diplomatic terms, combining these roles is like merging two separate offices of power into one person based in New Delhi. It indicates Washington’s goal, especially under Trump’s transactional leadership, to turn India into a platform for carrying out broader U.S. regional strategy.
For India, the question seems simple but is actually complex: What happens if the U.S. Ambassador acts less as a partner and more as a political tool, a hatchet man supporting Trump’s agenda? The potential diplomatic scenarios are not just theoretical; they are genuine: they include both cooperation and confrontation.
No Precedent in History
Historically, U.S. ambassadors to India have carried influence and personal charisma. John Kenneth Galbraith charmed Nehru and wrote evocative memoirs; Chester Bowles influenced the early Indo-U.S. relationship with unparalleled access. Robert Blackwill brought sharp strategic insight and set the stage for closer military cooperation.
But none of these individuals, however powerful, was tasked with overseeing India’s neighbourhood. The South and Central Asia portfolio has always belonged to Washington, mainly to the Assistant Secretary of State for the region. That Mr. Gor has been given this additional mandate breaks with decades of practice and signals a deliberate move by Washington to centralise regional diplomacy in New Delhi, and worse, to make India the core of its South Asia strategy.
For comparison, would a U.S. ambassador to Germany ever be told he is also responsible for Eastern Europe and the Balkans? Hardly. It would be diplomatically unacceptable to Berlin. By that standard, the Indian system has every right to express concern.
The Trump Playbook: Loyalty and Execution
Why Gor? Analysts note that he is not a career diplomat. He lacks experience in managing significant bilateral relationships, especially complex ones like India-U.S. But what he does have is unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump.
Recent years have revealed Trump’s impatience with envoys or appointees who do not “deliver the agenda.” Dissenters and independent-minded figures have been discarded with alarming speed. Thus, if Sergio Gor were to show sympathy for India’s non-interference doctrine or lean towards Delhi’s worldview, he could easily find himself replaced. That is a chilling prospect: it means the new ambassador may not even try to balance bilateral interests with his host country but will instead pursue Trump’s line with missionary zeal.
India’s Concerns: Regional Overreach
The concern is real, not hypothetical. India’s history of handling U.S. involvement in its neighbourhood is extensive and complex.
On Pakistan, India has repeatedly refused any form of U.S. mediation, especially on Kashmir. However, a regional envoy’s job description almost requires engagement with Islamabad. If Gor tries to equate India and Pakistan, the feared re-hyphenation would rekindle old tensions.
In Bangladesh, recent electoral turmoil in Dhaka has already seen American interventions that clash with Indian interests. Investigating further from New Delhi could upset smaller neighbours and complicate India’s carefully managed balancing act.
In Sri Lanka & Nepal, Washington has long used strategic entry points to limit Chinese influence. But if such moves are made through the ambassador in Delhi, it risks portraying India as complicit, which could diminish India’s image as an independent regional actor.
In Afghanistan and Central Asia, managing the Taliban relationship and accessing Central Asian energy routes are U.S. priorities. However, from India’s perspective, these activities can be presented and portrayed in ways that challenge Delhi’s diplomacy.
Indians are justified in asking, “Is Ambassador Gor here to nurture Indo-U.S. ties or to supervise our entire neighbourhood from a villa on Shantipath?”
Diplomatic Options Before India – India has several levers at its disposal
When Gor presents his credentials to the President of India, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) may quietly but firmly demand explanations of the ‘Special Representative’ role, which could potentially grant him significant regional powers.
Set Red Lines. India’s red lines must be reaffirmed: no third-party mediation in disputes with Pakistan; no interference in India’s regional decisions; no public statements that undermine sovereignty.
Side-lining as Strategy. If Gor steps out of line without overstepping completely, engagements can be adjusted. Access to senior Indian officials, invitations, and visibility can all be restricted without severe escalations.
Persona Non Grata (PNG) Clause. The nuclear option in diplomacy is declaring someone persona non grata. India has rarely, if ever, used this against an American envoy, but the clause exists. If Gor actively pursues a mission that harms India’s sovereignty, New Delhi could consider this drastic step. It would, without doubt, temporarily rupture relations, but it would also send a clear message.
Possible Scenarios
Business as Usual. The most straightforward approach is for Gor to ignore the “Special Representative” label and focus on bilateral gains: trade, defence technology, and the Indo-Pacific partnership. In this case, the unusual title becomes insignificant. Cooperation proceeds smoothly.
Subtle Intrusion. The second outcome is more probable: Gor gently tests the waters by attending regional seminars, making statements on Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, and nudging issues with Pakistan. India would then face a choice: either to contain him quietly or let minor irritations slide for the larger goal of cooperation with Washington.
Open Confrontation. In the third trajectory, Gor aggressively pursues Trump’s agenda, trying to facilitate discussions, positioning himself as an arbiter, or making public statements on Kashmir. That would be unacceptable to New Delhi. Tensions would rise, diplomacy would become strained, and relations could deteriorate.
Persona Non Grata. The final scenario, a PNG declaration, is the least likely but cannot be dismissed. If Gor blatantly interferes in India’s neighbourhood or compromises sovereignty, India may be forced to respond. The cost would be high, but so would the symbolism of India drawing a clear line.
The Bigger Picture: U.S. Strategy vs India’s Autonomy
This is about more than just one ambassador. The bigger picture is clear: Washington aims to boost its influence across South Asia, positioning itself as a key mediator during a time when China’s influence is strong. However, by doing so through its ambassador in Delhi, the U.S. risks turning India from a partner in shaping the region into a platform that Washington uses to impose its will.
This is not new. During the Cold War, the U.S. aimed to limit India’s growth and hedge it against Pakistan. But in the 21st century, when India became a key Indo-Pacific power, the expectation was for America to respect India’s sovereignty, not undermine it. The Sergio Gor experiment disrupts that balance.
India’s Response: Calm, Firm, Unyielding
Civility in engagement. Show no hostility unless provoked.
Firmness in red lines. Clarify repeatedly that neighbourhood policies are India’s sovereign domain.
Flexibility with Washington. Advance cooperation where interests converge, such as defence, semiconductors, emerging technologies, and maritime security, but block moves that diminish India’s centrality in South Asia. Should matters escalate, India must not hesitate to act. However, it must also avoid premature confrontation. Let Gor’s actions, not his titles, determine the firmness of India’s hand.
Conclusion
Ambassador Sergio Gor arrives in India not merely as an envoy but as an experiment, a litmus test of how far a U.S. President can stretch protocol and impose a loyalist to execute regional policy from Delhi. For India, this is as much a test of strategic patience as of diplomatic firmness.
We welcome envoys who build bridges. We do not accommodate plenipotentiaries who treat India as a regional operations hub. The U.S. must decide if it values India as an equal rising in stature, trusted and sovereign or whether it still clings to the habit of playing referee in South Asia.
Ambassador Gor has two paths before him: –
· Be a partner and consolidate one of the 21st century’s most important strategic partnerships.
· Or attempt to be a proxy, in which case India will resist, contain, and, if necessary, reject his presence.
One thing is sure: India has the experience, the maturity, and the self-confidence to deal with either outcome.