Skip to main content

America first, India later? The illusion of Indo–US strategic partnership

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*  
India’s relationship with the United States has often been portrayed as a rising strategic partnership built on mutual respect, democratic values, and shared interests. Yet, a closer look at the historical and contemporary trajectory of this relationship reveals an uneasy alliance, shaped more by American strategic and economic calculations than any enduring commitment to India's development or sovereignty.
The recent imposition of 25% tariffs on Indian exports by the Trump administration is not an aberration—it fits into a long history of U.S. policies that have sought to pressure India into compliance with Washington's geopolitical objectives. With China resisting American economic coercion, India is increasingly being targeted through trade measures, diplomatic pressure, and strategic alignments designed to serve U.S. interests in Asia. 
These moves not only challenge India’s economic growth but also undermine its independent foreign policy stance.
Throughout the Cold War and well into the post-liberalisation period, U.S. policy has reflected a desire to shape India’s choices, particularly in regional security and economic governance. From supporting Pakistan as a counterbalance to India, to technological and trade sanctions in the 1970s and 1980s, successive American administrations have made it clear that India’s value lies primarily in its utility to broader American objectives—be it countering Soviet influence during the Cold War or containing China today.
Even landmark initiatives like the U.S.–India Civil Nuclear Agreement have been viewed by critics as more beneficial to American industry than to India’s clean energy ambitions. The strategic dialogues and defense partnerships that followed—while significant on paper—have not erased the trust deficit that shadows this bilateral relationship. The emergence of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) is another case where India is expected to play a role in advancing a U.S.-led Indo-Pacific strategy, raising concerns about being cast as a junior partner in an unfolding geopolitical contest.
While presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden took a relatively collaborative approach toward India, structural imbalances remained. India’s ties with Russia, its approach to multilateralism, and its domestic policy autonomy have frequently clashed with U.S. expectations. Trump’s "America First" doctrine only made these contradictions more apparent.
Moreover, bipartisan support for India in Washington is often overstated. It is driven less by a genuine commitment to India’s rise than by economic imperatives and strategic calculations aimed at maintaining U.S. hegemony in Asia. In that context, the U.S. has shown willingness to work with authoritarian regimes when convenient and has often destabilized democratic governments across Latin America, Africa, and Asia to serve corporate and strategic interests.
The current Indian leadership, particularly under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has leaned into this relationship, with visible enthusiasm for ties with the U.S. and its allies. Modi’s open endorsement of Donald Trump during the “Howdy Modi” event in 2019 is emblematic of this alignment. However, such gestures risk compromising India’s long-standing tradition of non-alignment and its credibility as a sovereign actor on the global stage.
Critics argue that this eagerness stems from the ideological overlap between U.S. corporate-driven foreign policy and the nationalist, pro-business agenda of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. But as the global order shifts and American influence continues to face pushback, India must reassess the costs and benefits of its strategic alignments.
India’s future as a sovereign, pluralist, and self-reliant nation depends on its ability to maintain an independent foreign policy, resist external pressures, and engage in international solidarity—especially with nations across the Global South. The current moment demands a revival of India’s foundational anti-imperialist and non-aligned spirit to navigate an increasingly multipolar world.
A genuine strategic partnership must be built on equality, mutual benefit, and respect for sovereignty. Unless that foundation is established, the India–U.S. relationship may continue to be characterized less by shared values and more by uneasy compromises.

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava   Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor*  Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.