Increasing Indo-US bonhomie: A reality check

by Abbas Adil

Back in 2006, when serving as an Air Advisor of Pakistan in New Delhi, questions were frequently put to me by the Indian strategic community about Pakistan’s experience of dealing with Americans. Similarly, those in the military were curious about the intricacies involved in using US technology. All this made sense as India was preparing herself to embrace US offers of partnership and thus, as a smart buyer, they wanted to know about the usual strings that are attached with US aid and technology.

Those were the days when India was considering acquiring fighter aircraft and the acclaimed US’ F-16 was one of the candidates, which was being lobbied with the carrot of setting up a manufacturing plant in India. Those questions were usually answered, mostly in generalised terms, about the PAF’s experience of dealing with Americans in as much detail as my sensitive appointment could allow me to discuss. This was the time when the Indo-US nuclear deal was being extensively debated in the media and the Indian nation was evenly divided about befriending Americans. What was startling was the leverage that Congress leadership provided to the general masses for debating the intricacies involved in long-term strategic ties. Americans were bending over backwards with offers including Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules, heavy transporters, fighter aircraft and some reconnaissance equipment etc. but were reluctant to offer a solution to the issue of interoperability of India’s massive but outdated air defence system. India’s ambitions hinged on developing a battle management system, which they could not accomplish due to the handshake problem of Russian, French, Israeli and locally-produced systems.

Riding on the success of their nuclear deal, Indians could not resist the temptations and decided in favour of a strategic partnership with the United States in the hope to access sensitive technologies. Apparently, this was not a bad choice as most countries would jump on low hanging fruit. This was also a win for India’s strategic community, which was singing the mantra of two-front war scenarios. The Congress thought that the balancing act could be performed by ordering additional SU-30 aircraft and additional tanks from Russia and buying the fighter aircraft from Europe. Similarly, big US retailers were refused entry into the Indian market on the premise of safeguarding interests of small grocery stores. The policy had the imprint of smart thinking, but the proviso of the relationship was based on presenting a common front to China, which was surprising considering the fact that in those days, the majority in the Indian strategic community acknowledged the potentials of a rising China, but perhaps even those pragmatic Indian fell into the trap of false notions and misplaced expectations about not only their own trajectory, but the trust that the US would be able to sustain and secure the status of a sole superpower.

Anyway, the strategic balance, which was intricately managed by the Congress took a somersault and went belly up with the arrival of the BJP, which believed in an exponential jump in military prowess with the view of not only deterring neighbours but to pursue aggressive designs in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and beyond as well. Increased nationalism was steered towards communal fault lines with the danger of a looming genocide of minorities. This was a major deviation from the peaceful rise of many nationalistic governments in different parts of the world, notably Europe, where immigrant domination is considered an issue but the mass pogrom of minorities has never been considered a state policy.

The plan of a one-sided, tilted India, as desired by the anti-China coalition, was anyway untenable in the context of the Indian Ocean where multiple fault lines meet. Increased trade volume with China and multiple new contracts after President Putin’s last visit to India has put a question mark on India’s total alignment with the US, hence putting a question mark on US leverage on India. Additionally, 70 percent of Indian arsenal having Russian stamps and more than USD 100 billion of trade between India and China leaves little room for total US control. With all this in parallel, the relationship only serves to give a semblance of an untenable and highly impractical defensive and offensive manoeuvre against China.

For all good reasons, India should be able to see the US’ considerable reliance on China, given their trade links and which, in turn, leaves little possibility of a serious armed conflict between the US and China. Where would a future reconciliation between the US and China leave India, who as a US protégé, is portraying China as Enemy Number One? This is one question that evades the attention of BJP, but has been haunting the seasoned leadership of the Congress party which is visibly upset and can sense the looming danger of this unholy alliance and lopsided policy but has been forced to restrain her opposition after skirmishes between the Indian and Chinese forces at Leh. The old hands in politics realise the danger that pacts like AUKUS are pegging India in quicksand and the moment the dragon finds the going intolerable, its rage would reduce these fair-weather friends to issuing mere statements, while India would be left alone to face the dragon’s fire. India faces a huge challenge in bridging the ever-widening technological gap with China and recently the world saw, in disbelief, the disparity of resolve and skill between the armed forces of the two countries during the confrontation in Galwan Valley.

Additionally, the Congress Party must have not forgotten the unkind remarks of President Nixon about Indra Gandhi as revealed in the 2020 newly declassified papers, referring to her as a “witch” and “clever fox” in his private communication with Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. The difference between the Dravidians and Anglo-Saxons is far too significant and can never be bridged by the rising, prosperous and educated Indian diaspora. Slogans like ‘Shining India’ or the ‘biggest democracy’ are welcome to the extent of serving a respective government’s national interests, but nothing beyond that. Discrimination and mistreatment by the west were amply highlighted by Indian scholar and political activist Shashi Throor, in his recent interviews and talk shows in the UK and at many other places.

India’s hegemonic designs, constant rivalry with its neighbours and excessive reliance on the US is likely to restrict her role in the region. India’s internal and regional policies amply qualify its duplicity and fascist tendencies, which would be the cause of mistrust and eventual embarrassment to the US for continuing this relationship. As far as the longevity of her relations with the US is concerned, with dwindling international clout and scant spare resources, the US would not hesitate to distance itself from India at the time of her choosing. History bears witness to such unilateral withdrawals by the US, Afghanistan being the latest. Besides, US policymakers are not unaware of Chanakya’s influence in Indian policymaking and its manifestation when India, once a leader of the non-aligned movement, slipped into a poodle’s role for its interests.

However, India’s inconsistent approach in managing delicate foreign relations that, at some stage, can adversely affect Indian image but also regional peace, should be a source of concern for neighbours/policymakers on account of multiple reasons. First and foremost, because of its pairing with domestic policy, which is further an extension of RSS’ ideology of racism. Second, rising internal restlessness (Kashmir, Khalistan, minority lynchings, worsening economy) could lead the belligerent leadership towards desperate treacherous exterior manoeuvres that could destabilise the region. Finally, any irresponsible and provocative manoeuvre by the coalition in the South China Sea would not only destabilise the whole world but may invite riposte along the regional disputed borders.

India should realise that neighbours cannot be changed and the Chanakya political ideology may not always be right, which says, “your neighbour is your natural enemy while your neighbour’s neighbour is your friend”.

You may also like

Leave a Comment