Despite unprecedented outreach by Prime Minister Modi, India–US ties are under strain—not due to New Delhi’s actions, but because of Donald Trump’s erratic diplomacy and strategic disregard.

On August 11, 2025, Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir visited the United States—his second visit in less than two months—and made provocative threats against India from US soil, declaring, “We’ll start from India’s East, where they have located their most valuable resources, and then move westwards,” indicating an intent to destabilize India’s eastern front. He also issued nuclear threats, warning that Pakistan, as a nuclear-armed state, would take “half the world down with us” if threatened.

India swiftly condemned these remarks. The Ministry of External Affairs responded by calling Pakistan an “irresponsible nuclear state” and stated: “Such nuclear sabre-rattling is Pakistan’s stock-in-trade. We deeply regret that such inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric was aired on American soil.” These developments highlight the ongoing strategic challenges India faces in maintaining regional stability amid provocative posturing by Pakistan.

A decade of strategic engagement

It is both unfair and analytically flawed to blame Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the current turbulence in India–US relations. Since the beginning of his tenure in 2014, Modi has actively pursued outreach and undertaken significant steps across multiple domains to strengthen strategic ties with the United States.

During his first term, India and the US signed several major strategic agreements, including LEMOA (2016), COMCASA (2018), and the Industrial Security Annex (2019)—an extension of the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA)—which deepened defense-industrial cooperation and information sharing. He also enhanced regional engagement in the Indo-Pacific through the Quad and other strategic frameworks. In his second term, Modi consistently advanced closer ties with Washington through initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Maritime Domain Awareness (2022), iCET (2022), INDUS-X (2023), expanded space cooperation, and a sharper focus on Quad-led regional engagement.

Strategic convergence also extended to West Asia via the I2U2 framework (India–Israel–UAE–US), focusing on infrastructure, food security, and clean energy. These sustained efforts transformed the India–US relationship into a comprehensive global strategic partnership spanning defense, technology, regional security, and global governance.

Notably, despite once being denied entry into the United States, Prime Minister Modi remained deeply committed to the partnership, consistently describing it as a defining relationship for India. He has frequently emphasized the United States’ central role in India’s economic transformation, famously stating, “When I look towards the East, I see the western shores of the United States.” His commitment to strengthening these ties is evident in the number of high-level visits he made to the US, as well as the warm and personal manner in which he always received visiting American dignitaries in India—often breaking diplomatic protocol to greet them with hugs, firm handshakes, and unmistakable warmth. His use of personal diplomacy with US leaders has remained unmatched.

When President Trump visited India in February 2020, Modi hosted him at the grand “Namaste Trump” event in the world’s largest cricket stadium in Ahmedabad, where he hailed Trump as a “true friend” and led a crowd of over 100,000 in welcoming the US President. The scale and symbolism of the reception were unprecedented, underscoring Modi’s personal investment in the bilateral relationship.

Who really undermined the partnership?

If the relationship is fraying today, the responsibility lies squarely with Donald Trump—who has repeatedly disregarded India’s core national security interests, made over 30 false claims that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, and publicly targeted India through inflammatory rhetoric. It is truly astonishing that a sitting US President would repeat such a fabrication so many times, blatantly violating diplomatic norms in the process. Despite clear and consistent denials from India’s Prime Minister, External Affairs Minister, and Foreign Secretary, Trump persisted in spreading this falsehood. This is not mere misinformation—it erodes diplomatic credibility and mutual trust. The fault lies not with New Delhi, but with Trump’s reckless approach to diplomacy.

Recent developments have only worsened the situation. Trump has now imposed a blanket 50% tariff on Indian goods, citing India’s continued purchase of discounted Russian oil. This move has been widely condemned in India, with the Ministry of External Affairs responding: “The tariffs imposed by the United States are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable. Such actions are inconsistent with the principles of free and fair trade and undermine the trust built over decades of strategic cooperation.”

Prominent global commentator Fareed Zakaria expressed deep concerns over these developments, warning that by targeting India, the Trump administration risks “wrecking America’s entire Asia strategy.” He called the tariffs on Indian imports “very strange” and counterproductive, emphasizing India’s critical role as a strategic partner in balancing China within the Indo-Pacific. Zakaria stressed that alienating India undermines broader US objectives in the region and could push New Delhi toward alternative alliances, damaging American interests in the long term.

India, for its part, has taken no steps to undermine the partnership. Some may point to India’s longstanding ties with Russia as a source of friction. However, senior US officials have consistently acknowledged the historical context of India’s relationship with Russia and the complexities it entails.  As US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We understand that India has a long-standing defense relationship with Russia—one that developed over decades at a time when the United States was not able to be a partner to India.”

During the Biden administration, even as the war in Ukraine unfolded and Western pressure mounted, India continued to purchase discounted oil from Russia and maintained its longstanding defense relationship with Moscow. Yet, this did not lead to a rupture in ties as is now happening under Trump. In fact, the US even encouraged India’s purchase of discounted Russian oil to help stabilize global energy markets. As Ambassador Eric Garcetti candidly admitted, “They bought Russian oil because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil at a price cap.… It was actually the design of the policy because… we didn’t want the oil prices going up, and they fulfilled that.”

Nikki Haley, a former US Ambassador to the UN and Republican presidential candidate, also criticized Trump’s approach, stating: “India should not be buying oil from Russia. But China, an adversary and the number one buyer of Russian and Iranian oil, got a 90?day tariff pause. Don’t give China a pass and burn a relationship with a strong ally like India.”

Adding to this critique, Michael Kugelman, Director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, offered a stark assessment of the diplomatic fallout: “I think this is the worst crisis that the relationship has faced over the last two decades of strategic partnership.”

Moreover, one of the major sticking points in the current strain in India–US ties under Trump has been India’s refusal to open up its dairy and agricultural sectors to full American market access. However, this position is fundamentally rooted in national economic security—India’s small and medium businesses, farmers, and vulnerable rural populations simply cannot withstand such asymmetric exposure. The US has long demanded greater market access for its agricultural exports, including dairy, poultry, nuts, and grains, but India has consistently drawn a red line here, citing structural differences in farming practices and deep concerns over livelihood security.

Reaffirming this, Prime Minister Modi stated, “For us, our farmers’ welfare is supreme.” He added, “India will never compromise on the wellbeing of its farmers, dairy and fishermen. These sectors are non-negotiable. And I know personally I will have to pay a heavy price for it.”

India is not a client state.

There are suggestions from certain Indian commentators that New Delhi should learn from Pakistan’s playbook—praising Trump, appealing to his ego, even flattering him with talk of Nobel Prizes. But India cannot and should not follow this path. India is not a client state; it is a rising global power with self-respect and strategic autonomy. Unlike Pakistan, which has little economic or geopolitical weight and can oscillate between the US and China without major consequence, India must make calculated decisions in its foreign policy.

Moreover, India is not a swing state—one that lacks independent agency and merely shifts alignments based on external pressures or short-term gains. While India may have navigated such a role during the Cold War when its geopolitical weight was limited, today, as a civilizational state with a deep-rooted identity and as the world’s third-largest economy and a key Indo-Pacific actor, it must engage with the world on its own terms—with consistency, principle, and long-term strategic vision.

Furthermore, some argue that India’s assertiveness—its desire to be seen as a major global power—is the reason behind the tensions with the US.

According to this line of thought, India should downplay its rise, adopt a low profile, and avoid taking confident positions. This mindset is deeply flawed. It reflects an inferiority complex, not strategic thinking. India must speak confidently, act independently, and assert its interests without hesitation. A country cannot hope to become a great power if it lacks the courage to stand tall on the global stage.

Some analysts suggest that India should stop worrying about the US–Pakistan relationship and focus solely on pursuing its national interests. However, pursuing its national interests requires India to pay close attention to US–Pakistan ties. Samir Saran, a senior Indian geopolitical analyst, for instance, argues that India must not get “distracted by something that doesn’t concern us,” describing the US–Pakistan dynamic as “their relationship, their marriage—God bless them.” He warns against an emotional fixation on Pakistan and urges a shift toward outcome-based policymaking.

But this argument overlooks a fundamental strategic reality: Pakistan’s relationship with the United States does concern India—profoundly so. The trajectory of US–Pakistan military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and financial aid has historically had direct and often adverse implications for India’s national security. From American-supplied F-16s used against Indian forces to Pakistan’s leveraging of US diplomacy during critical flashpoints like Kargil and post-Balakot, history makes it clear that India cannot afford to be a passive observer. Most recently, on June 18, 2025, Donald Trump hosted Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, at the White House.  For India, these renewed US–Pakistan engagements—both military and economic—signal a shift that cannot be ignored. They reshape the strategic landscape and underline why India must remain vigilant and actively engaged, not a passive observer.

The hidden agenda behind such advice is clear: by ignoring regional developments, India–US relations may appear stronger—even if this comes at the cost of India’s strategic awareness. These voices claim to support deeper bilateral ties, but in effect, they advocate for India to remain silent about US actions that directly undermine its regional interests.

Ignoring this dynamic under the guise of “strategic maturity” is not prudence—it’s strategic negligence. Realpolitik demands vigilance, not indifference. National interests are not pursued in a vacuum. They are shaped by the strategic environment, and Pakistan’s engagement with the US remains a important variable within it. While India must not obsess over Pakistan, it also cannot afford to be naïve or dismissive about developments that directly impact its security calculus. Maintaining strong and stable ties with the United States is part of protecting Indian interests—but so is ensuring that those ties are not undercut or manipulated by Islamabad. Strategic policymaking must be driven by realism, not wishful thinking.

Moreover, Saran suggests that India should not concern itself with whether Pakistan is run by General Asim Munir or whether it functions as a democracy. He contends that India must stop viewing Pakistan through emotional or ideological lenses and instead prioritize outcomes that enhance long-term regional stability. However, this perspective overlooks a critical strategic reality: Pakistan’s internal political structure, social dynamics, civil-military relations, and its ties with the United States significantly influence its posture toward India and have direct implications for India’s national security. To suggest otherwise is to dangerously oversimplify a complex geopolitical matrix.

India–US ties have deepened over years of strategic engagement, shaped in large part by Prime Minister Modi’s proactive diplomacy. However, sustaining this partnership requires more than symbolic gestures—it demands clarity, balance, and mutual respect. India must assert its interests with confidence rather than deference, ensuring the relationship remains equitable and grounded in realism. The imposition of sweeping tariffs on Indian goods, despite India’s consistent commitment to the partnership, reflects a unilateral and short-sighted approach that India cannot ignore. Overlooking regional dynamics or downplaying US–Pakistan developments in the name of maturity risks weakening India’s strategic posture. As a rising power and a civilizational state, India must engage the world with vigilance and self-assurance—on its own terms and with strategic clarity, not symbolic appeasement.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post India-US relations under strain: What went wrong from ‘Namaste Trump’ to strategic turbulence appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings