British statesman Lord Palmerston once stated, “We have no eternal allies, no permanent enemies. Our interests are eternal and permanent, and those interests are our duty.”
India has kept this sentiment in mind, especially in its dealings with the US.
The US-India relationship doesn’t stem from any warm ideals of democracy or capitalism. Instead, it embodies Palmerston’s idea that national interests—rather than lofty ideals—shape international relationships. These ties reflect a mix of strategic, economic, and political interests that shift over time, rarely fitting neatly into preconceived notions. This dynamic is particularly evident today.
As President Trump contemplates a return to office amidst the shifting multipolar landscape and the so-called rules-based international order, he has, interestingly, fortified relations between the two nations. Facing tariffs that threaten India’s export economy, both countries find common ground in addressing shared security, technological concerns, and pressures from China.
This leads to a complicated, yet crucial, relationship. For Palmerston, attaining enduring agreements likely seemed more significant than merely chasing profit.
For years, some elements within Washington envisioned a formal alliance—picturing India as a key player in a sort of Asian NATO or a pillar of liberal democracy. But that expectation was never realistic; India has consistently preferred a different path, and Washington seems to have adjusted its expectations.
What has arisen instead is a functional partnership. The interplay of military, economic, and political connections flourishes precisely because it bypasses the rigidity of traditional alliances. It is built on mutual advantages rather than ideology or formal agreements, relying more on calculated benefits than emotional ties.
This characterizes US-India relations as a product of the current multipolar era. The dominance of a single power is waning, making alignments contingent and transactional. India has mastered the art of balancing relationships. As demand dictates, it remains engaged with both partners and rivals. Traditionally, this might appear to Washington as hedging; however, it’s really an embodiment of Palmerston’s realism—survival strategy.
India’s recent commitment to a new US defense framework comes while it simultaneously purchases discounted oil from Russia. Agreements with Washington regarding space initiatives coexist with energy relationships involving Iran. Even while participating in discussions with China at BRICS Summits, India has continued naval drills with the US.
This inconsistency doesn’t reflect a lack of strategy. Instead, it maximizes India’s operational freedom while steering clear of entanglement. The flexibility India shows is rooted in its complex history, geography, and experiences with external pressures.
For Washington, India’s geopolitical independence used to be frustrating. Now, it’s seen as a cost of collaboration. Trump’s “reciprocity” doctrine has chilled economic ties, with India feeling the brunt of increased tariffs and stalled trade negotiations. In response, Modi’s administration has pushed back with nationalist sentiment while still pursuing US defense technology and investment. This paradox—an apparent rift within a resilient partnership—persists because both sides recognize their mutual dependence.
Despite the tariff conflicts, military cooperation has intensified. India engages in more joint exercises with the US than with other nations; activities include the expanding Malabar Navy Drill, enhanced counter-terrorism operations, and amphibious training.
A newly established interoperability agreement simplifies logistical support in India and facilitates more open intelligence sharing. The realm of space has also become a collaborative arena, with partnerships on human spaceflight and satellite missions broadening the defense industry connection. It may not resemble a formal alliance, but it appears robust.
While the economic aspects face challenges, they aren’t irreparably damaged. Trump’s tariffs have put pressure on India’s export economy and intricate industrial policies. Nevertheless, both nations aim to double trade to $500 billion by 2030, with ongoing projects in supply chain diversification, semiconductor research, and clean technology even as rhetoric grows sharper.
At the heart of this state-to-state dialogue is the US Indian diaspora, an influential factor that neither side can overlook. With over 4.8 million Indian Americans, this community shapes perceptions of India and fosters ties within American society. Their presence ensures the relationship remains relevant, not just in crisis management but also in broader political contexts.
This was evident during Vice President JD Vance’s recent visit to India, where he received a warm welcome that communicated both diplomatic intent and outreach to Indian-American voters. The involvement of the diaspora makes India significant not just in strategic discussions but also in electoral dynamics, adding layers to the partnership.
However, challenges linger. India pushes back against US pressures regarding Russia, compliance with sanctions, and domestic policies like digital regulations and human rights issues. Trump’s tariff confrontations at times seem to incite nationalist sentiments within India.
Yet, partnerships can be resilient. Washington and New Delhi both recognize the need to mitigate China’s influence and ensure robust supply chains. They understand that maintaining sovereignty is a source of mutual strength.
There’s potential for deeper cooperation in areas such as maritime and space defense, high-tech advancements in semiconductors, AI, and clean energy. The diaspora’s political influence continues to integrate India into US domestic discourse. While this collaboration isn’t completely synchronized, it functions effectively.
In this multipolar reality, the US-India relationship could serve as a model. It doesn’t conform to a treaty system, ideological bloc, or hierarchical dominance; instead, it forms a dense network of sovereign partnerships. These connections may not always be formalized, but they can sustain themselves as long as core interests align.
While conflicts over tariffs may obscure the broader landscape, such disputes are fleeting compared to the enduring interests that continue to unite Washington and New Delhi. Palmerston’s observation remains relevant; in this case, the ongoing pursuit of mutual benefits is likely to ensure that the US-India partnership not only persists but grows even stronger in the coming years.
