 "India-US relations: How Trump’s missteps have created a deep distrust")
The United States and India once appeared poised to weave a partnership of unparalleled strength—a union of democracies capable of reshaping the balance of power in Asia and beyond. Yet, today, with Islamabad in Donald Trump’s crypto pocket and Washington equating India, the victim of brutal Islamic terror attacks, with Pakistan, its perpetrator, this relationship is in tatters.
Add US tariffs that aim at Indian export surpluses and Trump insisting that he opposes US investment in India, like those from Apple. The damage to India-US relations is real. With the US unhelpful during Operation Sindoor, a deep fog of distrust has engulfed this relationship.
India cannot be a partner of the US if it lacks unwavering American backing in its most pressing security requirements—protecting India from Pakistan terror attacks. In India there is outrage that the US did not stand by India when it mattered most. This absence was not viewed as a mere oversight; it was seen as a betrayal. America’s Pakistan tilt underscores a stark reality: without assured support in such pivotal moments, the US-India relationship rests on sand, not stone.
Trump’s missteps
Trump further widened this rift by claiming mediation for peace, casting a shadow over India’s long-held policy rejecting foreign mediation. PM Modi has staked much on bolstering India’s global standing, including through ties with the West. He will not lose an election for Trump’s sake—his domestic mandate trumps any obligation to absorb a US political fallout.
Historical baggage and hectoring tones
This distrust is not new; it is steeped in historical context. At a recent US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s hectoring tone—ordering India to shun Russian arms—struck a nerve. The admonition was both offensive and historically tone-deaf. It was the US, through the International Security Assistance (ISA) framework, that once denied India arms while arming Pakistan to the teeth with Super Sabres and F-16s, tilting the subcontinental balance against New Delhi during the Cold War. To now lecture India on its defence choices, while ignoring this legacy, smacks of hypocrisy and reinforces the perception that the US views India as a subordinate, not a partner.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsEconomic coercion: Tariffs and the iPhones
Economically, the US has opened another front of contention. Its tough tariff stance is seen in India as a deliberate move to cut the country down to size, stifling its ambitions as a global economic player. Trump’s insistence that iPhones should not be manufactured in India is perceived as outright economic warfare. India can make a great trade deal with the US and cut tariffs only if US investments make up the balance. Rather than fostering a symbiotic relationship that leverages India’s manufacturing potential, the US opts for coercion, jeopardising mutual benefits.
Strategic drift: The Quad and counter-terrorism
Strategically, the partnership is unravelling. The Quad—comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia—once a promising counterweight to authoritarianism, now languishes in a dangerous drift. India will look silly fighting Chinese influence ship to ship with the US when the same country backs Pakistan! Counter-terrorism cooperation, once a bedrock of bilateral ties, is all but dead.
Military hesitation and regional vacuums
Militarily, while India has pivoted to buying much of the US’ weaponry, the new chill will freeze the F35 deal.
Seen from New Delhi, only some short-term trade-offs are possible under Trump. This is not an administration India can do strategic business with. It is likely that post the trade deal, Trump may visit India in August 2025; things may look up for a while, but strategically this relationship is unlikely to blossom.
The loss is mutual: for the US, a diminished foothold in a pivotal region; India loses a superpower perceived now as one that neither safeguards its security nor nurtures its rise. What might have been a defining boom of an alliance for the 21st century is, for now, over—its potential a fading echo across a widening void.
The writer is a senior journalist with expertise in defence. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
