NEW DELHI: The term “ally” has been interpreted by successive US policymakers as denoting countries that follow the lead given by the once sole superpower. China was given a unique status from the time of President Nixon in the 1970s, while Cold War 1.0 with the Soviet Union was raging. Under Mao and his successors, Beijing followed its own instincts, which ran parallel to Washington’s policy where the Soviet Union was concerned, but diverged substantially with several other desiderata of US policymakers.
China was recognized by the US as sui generis, and given the latitude it wanted in other matters. India is sui generis where Cold War 2.0 between principally the United States and China is concerned, just as China was sui generis during Cold War 1.0 between principally the US and the Soviet Union. A democracy of 1.4 billion people merits as much latitude during Cold War 2.0 as China was given during Cold War 1.0. Otherwise, the US would be strengthening the hand of its adversary, China.
A recent example of China seeking to limit the reach and influence of India was during the first phase of Operation Sindoor, before a pause in hostilities took place. Pakistan, the perpetrator of the Pahalgam terror attack, was given full support from China. Hence, it is clear to the Union Government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi that China and not any other country is the adversary. Once again, it bears repetition that in the existential clash of competing and divergent ideologies and systems that Cold War 2.0 exemplifies, India is an indispensable partner and merits the needs to be given the same latitude and respect that China enjoyed during Cold War 1.0. Indeed, the PRC enjoyed such latitude long after Cold War 1.0 ended in the meltdown of the Soviet Union.
Indeed, much beyond that, until it became clear less than two decades ago that Beijing was taking an adversarial position in almost every situation where the interests of Washington were concerned. Of course, India is not a US “ally” as the term is defined by the US, but a country that takes decisions based on its own interests rather than those of Washington. During Cold War 2.0, India needs to be treated the way China was during Cold War 1.0, as sui generis.
Where matters of utmost concern to the US such as not permitting the PRC to be the dominant power in the Indo-Pacific, India is on the same page. However, the Indian elephant will not dance to the tune dictated by the US unless it matches its own interest. Trump believes in America First, Modi believes in India First.
Forget India, world oil markets would witness a steep rise in prices were Russian oil to be banned from it. Not that it can be. China would keep buying Russian oil even if India stops. Indeed, were India to stop buying Russian oil, it would be of advantage to China. Prices will be reduced for Chinese refineries and the added grip Beijing has over Moscow because of the Ukraine war will get further strengthened.
Why Chinese refineries are not being sanctioned by the US while it imposes sanctions on Indian refineries is a mystery. Given that Trump seeks to wean away Russia from the embrace of China, why the US President would switch to the Biden line of being an adversary power of Russia is inexplicable. Sending nuclear submarines presumably with nuclear projectiles onboard close to the Russian coast must gladden the hearts of Ursula von der Leyen and other cheerleaders of “Fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” brigade in Europe. It may sound absurd, but it is a reality that several millions in Europe believe that “Putin wants to sweep across Europe with his military”, and hence that pouring money into arming the Ukrainian armed forces to continue to fight Russia is essential “for European security”.
It is such mass delusions that cause a world war on the scale that Donald Trump warned about during his successful campaign to be the US President in 2024. All the more reason why President Trump needs to revert to his campaign vow of working to ensure that Russia ends the Ukraine war by agreeing to an armistice on condition that sanctions placed on the country by President Biden be withdrawn. Just as was the case during the US war with North Korea in the 1950s, Trump would find in India a helping hand in his efforts at peace in Ukraine as a consequence of its strong relationship with Russia.
And rather than seek to reduce US trade deficits with all other countries at one go, President Trump needs to focus on the country that accumulates by far the biggest trade surplus from the US, which is China. Shifting manufacturing from China to India would help in that process, besides making US products from tech titans globally competitive against Chinese substitutes.
US consumers seek low prices tagged to high quality, and if they find prices rising, would change their hitherto favourable view of Trump. Not just cheaper tech products but cheaper pharma sourced from India would improve access to healthcare in the US, a factor Secretary Kennedy, who is taking care of health services in the US, must surely be aware of. Within India, voices are multiplying of anger towards some of the perceived policies of President Trump getting transferred to anger against the US itself, a situation that only enemies of both countries would exult over.
Over the years, awareness of the importance of the India-US partnership in countering the plans of a belligerent China has grown within a significant section of policymakers. PM Modi and EAM Jaishankar have spoken and acted towards the Trump administration in the measured way that is needed. Dmitry Medvedev is a former President of the Russian Federation, and he gave a social media post that was tailored to set off fireworks in the 47th President of the US.
The incendiary and, it may be added, irresponsible remarks of Medvedev ought to have been avoided in a context where powerful elements in both Moscow and Washington are seeking a reset in relations between Russia and the US, something that would benefit both sides. In contrast, President Putin has been very balanced in his reactions, aware of the high stakes involved.
No child of Mother Russia would he happy at the swagger with which high-ranking CCP officials go about in Moscow, and it is only the European insistence on carrying forward a destructive war between Russia and Ukraine that has caused the Sino-Russian relationship to be “too close for comfort”, certainly for the former.
Certainly, the skies over the India-US relationship appear to be stormy, but they need to be met calmly and only then will the skies become clear. Overall, the India-US relationship has been proceeding apace, including in matters of defence and space, and an obsessive focus on intemperate social media posts would lead to a conclusion different from what is going on, which is a developing partnership between the two biggest democracies in the world. A partnership that is among the essentialities of the times we live in.
