Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The India-United States relationship, often touted as a ‘defining partnership of the 21st century,’ is nevertheless punctuated by periods of friction. While converging interests in areas like counter-terrorism and economic cooperation exist, a fundamental disconnect remains. This stems from Washington’s persistent difficulty in accommodating India’s national self-esteem and ambitions within its broader global strategy. The US, historically inclined towards transactional relationships and driven by its own strategic priorities, has often struggled to perceive India as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. This has led to a sense of unease in New Delhi, hindering the full realization of the partnership’s potential.
Historical Context: Post-Cold War Dynamics
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US, as the sole superpower, largely defined the international order. India, pursuing a policy of strategic autonomy, sought a multipolar world and resisted being drawn into a US-led alliance system. This divergence in worldview immediately created friction. The US focused on containing rogue states and promoting democracy, while India prioritized regional stability and economic development, often engaging with countries irrespective of their political systems.
The Nuclear Issue and Sanctions
India’s nuclear tests in 1998 triggered immediate and harsh sanctions from the US under the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. This was perceived in India as a blatant disregard for its security concerns and a demonstration of US double standards, given its tolerance of Pakistan’s nuclear program. The sanctions, though eventually eased, left a lasting impression of US unreliability and a tendency to prioritize non-proliferation over strategic partnership. This event highlighted the US’s reluctance to accept India as a responsible nuclear power with legitimate security needs.
The US-Pakistan Relationship and Afghanistan
The US’s long-standing alliance with Pakistan, even during periods of Pakistani support for terrorism, has been a consistent source of friction. India views Pakistan as the primary source of terrorism targeting it, and the US’s continued military and economic assistance to Pakistan, often framed as crucial for the war on terror, is seen as counterproductive. Furthermore, the US’s initial focus on Pakistan as the key partner in Afghanistan, sidelining India’s role in stabilizing the region, reinforced the perception that Washington prioritizes its own strategic interests over India’s concerns.
Recent Sources of Friction: CAATSA and Indo-Pacific Strategy
More recently, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) has emerged as a significant point of contention. The US threatened sanctions against India for its purchase of the S-400 missile defense system from Russia, despite India’s argument that it requires the system to address its security vulnerabilities. This demonstrated the US’s willingness to impose its strategic preferences on India, even at the cost of damaging bilateral relations.
Similarly, while India welcomes a free and open Indo-Pacific, it is wary of the US’s increasingly assertive approach to containing China, particularly if it requires India to take sides. India’s commitment to strategic autonomy prevents it from becoming a formal ally in a US-led anti-China coalition. The US’s expectation that India will automatically align with its China policy clashes with India’s desire to maintain independent relations with both countries.
Differing Perspectives on Multilateralism
The US, under different administrations, has exhibited a fluctuating commitment to multilateral institutions. Its withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Agreement on climate change signaled a preference for unilateral action. India, on the other hand, strongly believes in multilateralism and the importance of international cooperation. This divergence in approach further complicates the relationship, as India seeks a rules-based international order while the US sometimes prioritizes its own national interests.
| Issue | US Perspective | Indian Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Nuclear Program | Non-proliferation is paramount; concerns about regional arms race. | Legitimate security needs; right to strategic autonomy. |
| Pakistan | Strategic partner in counter-terrorism and regional stability. | Source of terrorism; requires consistent pressure. |
| CAATSA | Discouraging reliance on Russian military equipment. | Diversification of defense sources; addressing immediate security needs. |
| Indo-Pacific | Containing China’s influence; building a coalition against China. | Free and open Indo-Pacific; strategic autonomy; balanced relations with both US and China. |
Conclusion
The friction in India-US ties stems from a fundamental mismatch in strategic perceptions. Washington’s tendency to view relationships through a transactional lens, prioritizing its own interests and seeking to mold India to fit its global strategy, clashes with India’s aspirations for strategic autonomy and a multipolar world. Moving forward, the US needs to recognize India as a major power with legitimate security concerns and a distinct worldview. A more equitable partnership, based on mutual respect and understanding, is crucial for realizing the full potential of this important relationship. This requires the US to move beyond a purely transactional approach and acknowledge India’s role as a key stakeholder in shaping the future international order.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.