Why India and the US Are at Odds, A Deep Dive into the Strained Partnership
The strategic relationship between India and the United States has often been touted as one of the most significant partnerships of the 21st century. In a world where geopolitical alliances are in constant flux, the convergence of the world’s largest democracy and its most powerful one seems like a natural alignment. Yet, despite repeated diplomatic overtures and common interests ranging from counterterrorism to Indo-Pacific stability, there remains a persistent undercurrent of friction. Recent developments — notably during the presidency of Donald Trump — have laid bare the tensions between New Delhi and Washington.
Anita Inder Singh, a founding professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution in New Delhi, examines why India has found itself increasingly at odds with the US. Her analysis unpacks the complex interplay of foreign policy priorities, economic disagreements, and conflicting geopolitical alignments that have complicated the relationship.
A Relationship Tested Under Trump
When Donald Trump assumed office, his administration’s foreign policy was unapologetically transactional, often framed through the lens of “America First.” Trump’s approach was blunt, sometimes abrasive, and premised on the belief that the US could extract better terms from both allies and adversaries alike. India, despite being hailed as a strategic partner in Washington’s Asia policy, did not escape this hard-bargaining style.
Trump’s administration imposed steep tariffs on Indian exports, citing trade imbalances. At the same time, the US penalized India for its substantial oil imports from Russia, underscoring Washington’s expectation that New Delhi should align more closely with Western sanctions regimes. These measures struck at the heart of India’s economic and strategic autonomy, challenging its long-cherished doctrine of multi-alignment.
India’s hope of securing a free trade agreement with the US was tempered by the fact that Washington continued to raise tariffs and limit market access for Indian goods. The removal of India from the US Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) — a program allowing duty-free access for certain products — was a significant setback for Indian exporters.
Economic Pressures and Strategic Autonomy
For India, the Trump era was a reminder that Washington’s friendship came with strings attached. The tariffs were not merely economic penalties; they were a message that India’s independent foreign policy — especially its continued defense and energy ties with Russia — could carry real costs.
India, with its relatively low GDP per capita and high unemployment, is still building the economic muscle to match its geopolitical ambitions. While the country boasts a $4-trillion economy, it faces a stark challenge in competing with China’s $19-trillion behemoth. Most developing countries, including members of the European Union and India’s South Asian neighbors, are open to deeper economic integration with China, especially through initiatives like the Belt and Road. Against this backdrop, India seeks to maintain its strategic independence by engaging multiple partners, including the US, Russia, and European powers.
Trump’s America, however, expected clear alignment — especially on issues like Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. For Washington, India’s refusal to take a stronger stance against Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and its invasion of Ukraine was a disappointment.
Geopolitical Divergences: Russia, Pakistan, and the Indo-Pac Equation
One of the central points of divergence between India and the US lies in their respective relationships with Russia. While the West has sought to isolate Moscow economically and diplomatically, India has maintained — and in some respects deepened — its defense and energy ties with Russia. This is not simply a matter of nostalgia for Cold War-era partnerships; Russia remains India’s largest arms supplier, and its energy exports are crucial for India’s growing economy.
Similarly, the US expectation that India would align more closely with its stance on Pakistan has been complicated by Trump’s own unpredictable engagement with Islamabad. In a controversial episode, Trump claimed that Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan had requested his mediation on the Kashmir dispute — a statement New Delhi firmly rejected, as India has long maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral issue.
Pakistan, under Khan, sought to leverage its relations with both Washington and Beijing to counterbalance India’s regional influence. For India, any perceived US softness toward Pakistan — especially in the realm of security assistance — is a point of contention.
The China Factor
While both India and the US view China as a strategic competitor, their approaches are not identical. Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy envisions India as a key partner in countering Beijing’s influence, particularly through groupings like the Quad (comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia). However, India’s economic relationship with China remains substantial, even amid border tensions such as the Galwan Valley clash of 2020.
The US often expects India to adopt a more confrontational stance toward China across economic and diplomatic forums, but New Delhi is wary of overcommitment. India’s geopolitical calculus involves balancing deterrence with engagement, given its shared border and deep trade links with China.
The Mystery of India’s Place in “Trump 2.0” Calculations
Singh notes that the question of where India fits into Trump’s — or any future US administration’s — strategic calculations remains unresolved. On paper, India is the largest single buyer of US exports in certain categories, accounting for 18% of American exports in some sectors. Yet, India’s exports to the US form only 2.1% of America’s total imports, and US investments in India remain relatively modest.
This imbalance underscores a broader truth: while the rhetoric of partnership is strong, the practical benefits are unevenly distributed. American policymakers may see India as an important partner in their global strategy, but economic self-interest and domestic political considerations often take precedence.
Perceptions, Missteps, and the Way Forward
Miscommunication has often amplified tensions. The Trump administration’s public statements on mediation in Kashmir, its framing of trade negotiations as zero-sum, and its inconsistent messaging on Pakistan contributed to mutual mistrust. On the Indian side, there has been a reluctance to fully articulate how it balances relations with Russia, China, and the US — a lack of clarity that can fuel suspicion in Washington.
The path forward lies in recalibrating expectations. For India, the challenge is to assert its strategic autonomy without alienating a key partner in the US. For Washington, the task is to recognize that India’s independent foreign policy is not necessarily a liability; in fact, it can be an asset in managing a multipolar Asia.
Five Key Q&A on the India-US Frictions
1. Why did the US impose tariffs on Indian exports during Trump’s presidency?
The Trump administration imposed tariffs as part of its broader effort to reduce trade deficits and promote “fair” trade. India was targeted for what Washington saw as barriers to market access and protectionist policies. The removal of India from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was a signal that the US expected more reciprocal trade arrangements.
2. How does India’s relationship with Russia affect its ties with the US?
India’s long-standing defense and energy ties with Russia are seen in Washington as an obstacle to deeper alignment. The US expects partners to support its sanctions and strategic isolation of Moscow, especially after the Ukraine invasion. India’s refusal to fully endorse these measures is a point of friction.
3. What role does Pakistan play in India-US disagreements?
US engagement with Pakistan, including occasional suggestions of mediation in the Kashmir dispute, has historically irked New Delhi. India views Kashmir as a bilateral issue and resists any third-party involvement. Trump’s public claim that Pakistan sought his mediation was firmly rejected by India, further straining trust.
4. How does China factor into the equation?
Both countries see China as a strategic rival, but their methods differ. The US prefers a more overtly confrontational approach, while India balances deterrence with economic engagement. This divergence in strategy sometimes leads to differing expectations within the partnership.
5. What is the biggest challenge in defining India’s role in US foreign policy?
The main challenge is the mismatch between rhetoric and reality. While both sides talk of a “strategic partnership,” economic and policy decisions often reveal gaps in alignment. For India, maintaining strategic autonomy while deepening ties with the US is a delicate balancing act; for the US, adjusting to India’s independent stance requires recalibrated expectations.
