Diplomatic tightrope: Decoding India-US ties in the shadow of Khalistan issue and Jaishankar's Moscow visit

India’s strategic importance on the global front has changed rapidly over the last decade. It coincides with the active cultivation of one of the most important geopolitical relationships today – that of the India-US partnership. In an increasingly multilateral world where autocracies such as China and Russia continue to loom large, a partnership between two economically relevant democracies can benefit immensely. Yet, the needle moves much too slowly. While president Barack Obama announced the end of “ export control regimes preventing the sale of sensitive technology to India” in 2010, the India-US relationship underwent several upheavals continuing into the tenure of now Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Despite Indian concerns ranging from the American sheltering of terrorists such as David Headley Coleman to the lack of technology transfer in defence deals over the years, the Indian establishment under Prime Minister Modi has seen the revitalization and strengthening of the Quad, along with other strategically important multilateral groupings such as I2U2 (also known as the West Asian Quad), while making the US a significant defence supplier to the country. That US interest in India is primarily due to its position as a counterweight to China is not a dampening factor. Interestingly, the US has, for ages, cultivated Pakistan as a hedge against India, and continues to pander to a terrorist regime that is also a Chinese partner. That much American rhetoric against the Chinese threat pays lip service to the danger while pursuing other interests is a matter of record. Its unfortunate impact on bilateral relations with India has been that the US has come to be understood as an unreliable partner, but a necessary one. As India faced Chinese attacks in Galwan during 2020 at the peak of the pandemic lockdown, a cowardly attack by the revanchist power that left 20 Indian soldiers dead due to unilateral attempts at “challenging the status quo” in the region. While it is India that bears the weight of the dragon on its borders, the US paid little heed to what it treated as a regional conflict to be handled bilaterally. As a country that maintains strategic autonomy, India seemed comfortable with the few comments it elicited from the western world. Similarly, the fallout of the hurried withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, with American weaponry left behind for the various Taliban factions to use and smuggle into India’s western neighbourhood, left a mess for India to clean up. For a country that is much too familiar with weapons smuggled into its territory from Afghanistan into Pakistan, and from there the attempts to infiltrate them into India, it was an urgent task to ensure that Indian citizens and soldiers survived much of the fallout of the American decision. Yet, the US has presented as far from understanding of Indian national interest. Russian oil and defence continue to help India, and no amount of western pressure can change the fact it is the EU that enables Russia, many magnitudes more than India does. India’s clear intent of wanting peace, but without provoking greater destruction in the region not only seemed to fall on deaf ears, but was twisted and misinterpreted as being against Ukrainian citizens. It seemed especially galling to see the resurgence of Nazi heroes and insignia being normalised, racist attacks against Indian and African students, all while India sent humanitarian aid to the country while also mounting successful operations to rescue students from all across the Indian subcontinent. In recent years, the lack of support for a prolonged war in the Ukraine, while refusing to bend the knee to American sanctions against Russia will be seen as the turning point at which the American State Department stopped being covert about requiring Indian subservience. Despite many positive interactions at the G20 Summit hosted by India, the relationship hit choppy waters soon. While instigating attempts at regime change in Bangladesh which would destabilise India’s neighbourhood further, US diplomacy has undulated from treating India as a thorn in its side to a bit player and a probable counterweight to Chinese plans. India’s impoverished state, coupled with leaders primarily engaging in international speeches and state dinners rather than signing deals or providing aid, was comprehensible to the US. However, as India strengthens economically, any expression of its self-interest is often scrutinized negatively, despite the country’s numerous efforts to signal a commitment to global partnership for the greater good. As Eric Garcetti disingenuously revealed an invite to President Joe Biden for India’s Republic Day parade in 2024 late last year, India could not invite a different guest until the invite had been accepted or declined officially. After another faux-naif last-minute public declining of said invite by the US, French President Emmanuel Macron was chosen to be the guest of honour, with the intent to hasten and cement more defence deliveries from the European nation as India widens its defence procurement. This follows on the heels of another diplomatic flurry involving Canada-supported narco-terror syndicates of Khalistanis who are also patronised by the CIA to breed terror against India. As India took a strong stand on national security issues and refused to bow to further harassment by Canadian and US diplomats, the western press went into overdrive to continue its embellishments of Indian “belligerence” using mere tonality without context and depending on their own readers to be misinformed or ignorant about the rest of the world. While Financial Times editorialised their interview with Prime Minister Modi recently, Andrew Korybko wonders in his article if there was a deliberate intent to play up a rift in India-Russia relations by the western media after External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s five-day visit to Russia. Soon after, the US shared that it was scrutinizing its deal to partner with India in the production of its GE F-414 engines. This deal involves an unprecedented 80% Transfer of Technology and would boost Indian manufacturing, but the timing of announcing additional scrutiny is interesting. Transactional national interest that forms the backbone of pragmatic foreign policy necessitates that trade and engagements continue despite diplomatic kerfuffles. However, no attempts to signal significant goodwill are made or expected as India and the US both go into election mode this year. As mentioned in a recent article , shadowy domestic politics guides American foreign policy over stability or national interest, and make American elections interesting for the rest of the world. Perhaps 2024 proves to be a year that stabilizes an international relationship of immense geostrategic importance as something less exciting than a middle school romance and reflects the maturity and depth of shared democratic values it should. The author is a columnist at several Indian publications such as NDTV, FirstPost and CNN-News18, and hosts a podcast on geopolitics and culture. She writes about international relations, public policy and history, and posts on X on her handle @sagorika_s. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views_. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.