Three parallel realities of Indo-US relations

In terms of convergences, China continues to be the fundamental strategic glue. The initiative on critical and emerging technologies provides a robust framework for deepening cooperation across defence coproduction and innovation, semiconductor manufacturing, space, telecom, biotechnology, Artificial Intelligence, quantum, and more. New defence pacts on supply chains have been signed, older procurements are in process, established American companies and new Indian startups are working together, personnel interactions have been more institutionalised, and joint exercises continue to be held. Businesses continue to explore investment opportunities in both directions, with pharma, aviation, and investment summits held in recent months. And the Indian diaspora’s profile in American politics has never been higher.

In terms of controversies, there is residue from the allegations implicating an Indian intelligence official in an assassination plot in America, an issue that will come back to the news cycle once Nikhil Gupta’s trial begins and Canada makes its investigation public. The US was upset with the timing of PM Modi’s visit to Russia as it coincided with NATO’s 75th summit in DC, a sense of disappointment that was partially offset by the PM’s subsequent visit to Ukraine. The US and India have clearly different assessments of what happened in Bangladesh and are struggling to find common ground in practice, even if the goal of a democratically elected government and an inclusive polity remains the same. And there is undoubtedly the role of external actors — Russia, China, and Pakistan — in amplifying differences further, for all three share an interest in causing a rupture in India-US ties.

All of this reveals three parallel realities of the India-US relationship.

One, there is an extraordinary degree of dialogue and convergence between the highest political and bureaucratic leadership of the two countries. From the Indian side, Modi, Doval, Singh, Jaishankar, commerce minister Piyush Goyal, Kwatra, current foreign secretary Vikram Misri, and before he retired this January, ambassador Taranjit Singh Sandhu, have been key. From the American side, Biden, Sullivan, Blinken, Austin, Campbell, Verma, commerce secretary Gina Raimondo, and White House tech policy czar Tarun Chhabra have been central actors. All these individuals talk to their interlocutors in the other system more often than assumed. They share assessments on global and regional issues, including China, but go beyond it as well. They find ways to privately resolve what can become major points of public differences and deepen ties in the most sensitive of domains.

To be sure, structural convergences drive this. Business chambers lobby for it. There is popular goodwill for the US in India and India in the US. Elites are getting more invested in each other’s country. It is on top of this that the personnel matter. But since Bill Clinton’s 2000 visit, there has broadly been a convergence and alignment in the worldview between the top personnel. And that itself tells us a lot and offers a sign of continuity irrespective of the outcome of the upcoming US presidential elections.

Two, there are ideologically driven factions in both countries that are sceptical of the partnership. Just like India’s old Left, India’s new Right has a certain conspiratorial manner of viewing America’s loud and heterogeneous State and civil society apparatus and remains convinced that the West is out to undermine India. Just like the ultra-nationalists of every society, there are Indian strategic elites unwilling to admit how much Delhi needs Washington’s geopolitical support and network of allies, New York’s financial flows, Silicon Valley’s tech edge and venture capital investments for India’s own domestic development.

Just like the colonialists of yore and the liberal internationalists and neoconservatives of recent decades, there are American progressives who have taken on the mantle of democratic reform elsewhere even as they have little moral ground given the horrors of American history and war crimes. There are American evangelists who engage in the most corrupt enterprises to induce people to convert and look down on local cultures. There are American strategists unwilling to admit that a diminishment of their power now requires them to work with non-allies that have their own minds.

The trust deficit between these constituencies sometimes gets reflected in the public sphere in vicious ways, which then makes the relationship appear to be in a deeper crisis than it really is. But it does point to the need for leaders to be more honest, politically own the bilateral relationship, and invest in smarter public diplomacy to prepare public opinion for both deeper ties and differences.

Finally, there is a paradox related to economy, technology, and diaspora. As economic ties deepen and investments flow, there will also be more expectations on the business environment front, more demands on regulations and taxes, and more quarrels on trade. As tech ties deepen, there will be more tensions between tech firms and State sovereignty concerns. And, as the diaspora becomes active in politics or transnational ideological networks get consolidated, there will be a constant tussle between political sympathies on ethnic and ideological grounds and the imperative of completely staying away from the domestic politics of another country. The next US administration and the Indian government will have to balance between celebrating this growing intimacy and navigating its attendant challenges.

The views expressed are personal

Get Current Updates on…

See more