For over a century, the United States has led the global order—militarily, economically, and technologically. Its history shows that any nation challenging this dominance faces resistance, sometimes with disastrous results. Japan in 1945, the Soviet Union in 1991, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and now China have all learned this lesson.
Washington will increasingly court and pressure India due to its rapid economic, military, and geopolitical rise. The challenge is to manage this relationship without becoming dependent or confrontational.
From 1962 to Today—A Shifting Relationship
The 1962 Sino-Indian War was the first time Washington provided serious military aid to India. Yet, the goodwill faded quickly; by 1965, the U.S. inclined towards Pakistan during the Indo-Pak War, reinforcing Indian perceptions of American unreliability.
The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War represented a low point. President Nixon and Henry Kissinger supported Pakistan, viewing it as a step towards China, and deployed the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal as a display of force.
“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but it is fatal to be America’s friend.” Henry Kissinger’s warning remains as relevant for India today as it was in 1971.
India’s 1974 nuclear test prompted the creation of technology denial regimes, while the 1980s saw Washington ignoring Pakistan’s covert nuclear programme in exchange for assistance in Afghanistan. The 1991 economic crisis and the collapse of the USSR compelled India to liberalise, opening the door to U.S. trade and investment.
The 1998 nuclear tests led to sanctions, but the Kargil War softened relations. The 2005 Civil Nuclear Agreement signaled a significant shift, fostering a strategic partnership. By the 2010s, cooperation grew through defence pacts and Indo-Pacific engagement.
Post-Operation Sindoor and Old Habits
Operation Sindoor, India’s sustained military effort against cross-border terrorism, demonstrated New Delhi’s resolve. Yet even during this, Washington discreetly resumed military and intelligence ties with Pakistan, showing that U.S. policy remains driven by immediate interests.
“The US will engage adversaries and allies alike if it suits its interests. India must plan accordingly.”
The lesson is clear: the U.S. will engage adversaries and allies alike if it suits its objectives.
The Trump Factor—Tariffs, Optics, and Unpredictability
The administration of Donald Trump conveyed conflicting messages. India lost its preferential trade status and faced steep tariffs. Washington viewed Modi’s perceived warmth towards Putin with suspicion, particularly in relation to Ukraine.
Trump also harbours ambitions of winning a Nobel Peace Prize, positioning himself as a “peacemaker” in Korea, the Middle East, and even hinting at mediating between India and Pakistan. Yet his term also involved significant military actions, including the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.
For India, the key takeaway was that personal diplomacy is no substitute for the institutional anchoring of ties.
Strategic Vulnerabilities
U.S. influence is not limited to defence sales. It extends to the dollar-dominated financial system, technology dependencies, and control over global narratives through platforms like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. In an open democracy, these can be potent tools for shaping public opinion and policy debates.
India needs to create its own Social Media platforms to build perceptions and narratives.
“Strategic autonomy is not non-alignment; it is the freedom to say yes or no without fear of punishment.”
India’s entrepreneurs Adani, Ambani, Tata, and Mahindra are not just business leaders; they are pillars of strategic autonomy. Undermining them, whether through market manipulation or narrative warfare, directly impacts national resilience.
“India’s entrepreneurs are more than captains of industry; they are pillars of national security.”
The green hydrogen push serves as a prime example: its success could significantly reduce oil imports, disrupt global energy markets, and unsettle established interests.
The Russia Dilemma
India’s defence dependence on Russia remains significant, but Moscow’s leverage is shrinking. Over-identification with Russia risks alienating the U.S., Japan, and European partners essential for India’s Indo-Pacific posture and technological ambitions.
In many ways, Trump and Putin share similar traits: they are transactional, image-conscious, and motivated by personal ambition. But the United States as a nation is much larger than Trump, shaped by institutions and a deep democratic tradition. America is not Trump; U.S. foreign policy will outlast him.
India must side with the democracies of the world in the long term. Russia offers much in the near-term oil revenue and discounted energy that enables Moscow to wage war in Ukraine while allowing India to profit. Putin is clever; a blend of old military joint ventures and energy trade could create short-term gains for New Delhi.
Notwithstanding, Russia has been a stabilising force in times of geopolitical transactional diplomacy and economics.
But democracies are watching what India will choose. Putin offers one path, one rooted in opportunistic advantage today. The other path is to align more closely with democratic powers, charting a long-term course that cements India’s place as a massive, responsible global power. This is the choice that will define India’s strategic identity for decades.
Tariffs as a Catalyst for Self-Reliance
The 1991 crisis forced India to reinvent itself. Tariff disputes today should be treated as triggers to accelerate R&D, build global Indian brands, and secure the rupee’s long-term strength, rather than setbacks.
Way Forward – Indo-U.S. Partnership 2.0
· Preserve Strategic Autonomy – Align when interests converge, resist when they don’t.
· Anchor Ties Institutionally – Engage beyond leaders; build deep links with U.S. Congress, think tanks, and industry.
· Manage Russia Optics – Maintain necessary cooperation without projecting political alignment.
· Counter Information Warfare – Build domestic tech platforms and protect public discourse from foreign manipulation.
· Co-Develop Defence Tech – Move beyond buyer-seller to joint innovation.
· Build Economic Insulation – Diversify supply chains, trade partners, and critical technology sources.
Engage, But with Eyes Open
Rahim’s Doha offers timeless advice:
“रहिमन धागा प्रेम का मत तोड़ो चटकाय,
टूटे तो जुड़े नहीं, जुड़े गाँठ पड़ जाय।”
“Once trust breaks, even if repaired, it carries the knot. Indo–US ties have had their breaks—but they have endured.”
Indo-U.S. ties have had their breaks from 1971 to 1998, but they have also endured. The relationship is of immense value, too valuable to let drift, but too consequential to enter with illusions.
Kissinger’s warning should guide us: it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but it is fatal to be its friend. Our engagement must be pragmatic, interest-driven, and free from dependency, as our decisions carry significant weight.
India’s rise will be tested not just by rivals, but by “friends” seeking to shape its path. Strategic patience, economic resilience, and diplomatic agility will ensure that we choose our destiny.