India and America: A friendship in need of clarity

If China and the U.S, despite being rivals, can sit down, talk openly, and seek common ground, why can’t India and America have a more honest conversation about what each truly wants from the other? For the past two decades, India and the United States have often called each other “natural partners.” Over the past decade, the two countries have signed several agreements, including defence agreements, technology cooperation, and joined hands in the Indo-Pacific to counterbalance China’s rise. Yet beneath this diplomatic warm relationship lies an uneasy truth: the relationship remains somewhat thin in understanding, or I should say, a little fragile. The U.S. sees India as a democratic counterweight to China, a massive market, and a key ally in Asia. India, on the other hand, wants American investment, access to advanced technology, and recognition as an independent global power. India also wants the US to recognise and support India as a permanent member of the UNSC.

Both have achieved a lot in the last two decades. The civil nuclear deal of 2005 ended decades of U.S. sanctions on India. Defence agreements, such as COMCASA (Communication and Compatibility & Security Agreement) and BECA (Basic Exchange of Communication Agreement), have made the militaries closer and understanding. The new iCET framework (Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies) promises cooperation in semiconductors, AI, and clean energy. But even as the friendship has been growing, one could still feel the friction. Recently, Washington has been pressuring India to cut oil imports from Russia and take stronger positions on global issues like the relationship with Iran, which suits U.S. interests. India, meanwhile, refuses to abandon its long-term ties with Moscow or compromise on its independent foreign policy.

When it comes to trade, visa rules, or technology sharing, America often preaches partnership but practices isolationism that perhaps is unacceptable when the relationship should be seen as equals. It forces India to see, visualise, and understand the difference between being a “partner” and being an “ally. But the big question, at least to a common person in the country, is if China and the U.S. can talk, so can India and the U.S.

Just last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping met U.S. President Donald Trump in Busan. The two held lengthy discussions on their country’s economic ties and long-term strategy. It was described as a “milestone” meeting that may help stabilise global trade and supply chains. That even bitter rivals like China and the U.S. can talk calmly and seek common ground should remind India of a basic rule of diplomacy that dialogue matters, however slow it may be. As one of the political observers on the India-US relationship said, India’s relationship with the U.S. has become crowded with statements, but short on sincere conversations. India should now push for a structured dialogue, not just between ministers, but also involving retired diplomats, economists, academics, and strategists who understand the history of both countries. Who were once part of building trust and a relationship.

The aim should be to address the gaps and understand each other’s urgencies. For Washington, the main focus in Asia is on containing China. For New Delhi, it is securing its borders, protecting energy routes, and boosting businesses, allowing India to reach a 5-trillion-economy as soon as possible.

One needs to discuss that if the US and other European partners have allowed India to import Russian oil, then why impose a ban on India now? India was able to maintain ties with Iran because of geography and energy security for the last two years, so why objections now? India needs to engage not only at the US President’s office but at different layers of power in the US, as India’s interests at the present juncture are not identical to America’s. One should not forget India’s stand on the non-alignment movement since the Cold War days. India does not need to bend, but at the same time needs to accelerate talks at all levels with Washington, DC, including people-to-people dialogue.

Global leaders understand India’s strength lies in its ability to talk to everyone and maintain relationships with everyone: America, Russia, the EU, China, and the Global South. That flexibility gives India global weight. If New Delhi locks itself too closely with Washington, it will lose manoeuvring space in dealing with other powers.

The U.S. wants India to open its market, but it rarely opens its own. Tariffs on Indian goods, visa restrictions, and reluctance to share advanced technology continue. India must insist that any deepening of defence or economic ties brings clear, measurable benefits, jobs, investment, and technology transfer. India’s oil imports, regional diplomacy, and ties with Russia are not bargaining chips. They are vital to its security and economy. If President Donald Trump can talk to Putin, why should Washington put hurdles in the India-Russia relationship or the India-China relationship? The current 2 2 dialogue between the foreign and defence ministers is useful but too narrow. India should propose a broader “Strategic Dialogue” involving trade, energy, and climate, where disagreements are not ignored but discussed at length and may be researched. India should demand a clear path to reduce tariffs and restore trade preferences for Indian exports. India should not only insist but also explain to the US why it is important for the US and other countries to recognise India’s oil and gas imports, whether from Russia, Iran or any other country that serves India’s national interest.

We need to take a leaf from the China and US relationship that, despite the two countries remaining competitors, still understands the power of dialogue. They talk often, even when tensions are high. Both know that engagement does not mean surrender; it means clarity, where we may disagree but continue the exchange of ideas. Instead of avoiding difficult conversations, New Delhi should face them head-on. Partnership cannot mean agreeing on everything. It means having the honesty to disagree, and the maturity to keep talking.

India has taken bold steps before, and I believe, current situation demands similar bold steps. India should revisit its own past successes. The civil nuclear deal with the U.S. in 2005 broke decades of mistrust. It was achieved because both sides took time to understand each other’s political compulsions and security needs. Now, nearly two decades later, the time has come for another strategic rethink. The world has changed: the U.S. is more inward-looking, China is more self-confident, and global trade is more fragmented. India has grown and is ready to share the global responsibilities. We should not distance ourselves from Washington. It means approaching the relationship with firm principles. India should deepen cooperation only where it serves national interest on technology, climate, defence, or supply chains and be ready to say “no” when it doesn’t.

The common people sitting in coffee houses, university students have started asking about the drifting relationship and growing mistrust, as the Indian diaspora and Indian workforce have helped the US grow in several fields. We have moved several steps ahead in the relationship. Both sides need to remember that being the largest and biggest democracies, we should shun the silence and build durability through continuing dialogue, however, difficult it may be.

Surinder Singh Oberoi,

National Editor Greater Kashmir