The quest for an entente in the US-India relationship remains unfinished. When it comes to this relationship, mutual trust and understanding, or lack thereof, both of India and the Hindu faith, figure prominently in political, diplomatic, and popular discourse.
Indian-Americans have been fighting an ongoing battle against this misrepresentation from the earliest years of their immigration to America. As the West gained control over intellectual discourse in its colonies, natives of the traditions became profoundly influenced—even in their self-understanding—by Western interpretations of their own religious and cultural heritage. Colonial consciousness, in a colonized mind, hinders the process of self-experience.
One of the most intriguing ideas in quantum theory is the observer effect—the principle that the very act of observation influences the reality being observed. This concept offers a powerful analogy for the study of India and Hinduism by Western scholars. It provides a useful framework for understanding concerns that Western academic scrutiny does not merely document Hinduism. Still, it actively reshapes it—often in ways that Hindus believe are not for the better. In this sense, the “observer bias” introduced by external scholars has altered both the perception and its self-understanding.
“The New India Conference,” on April 23, 2026, organized by the Hudson Institute, a Washington, DC-based conservative think-tank, was a small step towards overcoming that misrepresentation.
The conference highlighted the US-India partnership as essential for addressing 21st-century challenges, yet it is in need of deliberate recalibration. India’s rising global importance—now among the world’s leading economies with rapid digital transformation—contrasts with notable knowledge gaps in Washington.
In his “Wall Street Journal” op-ed, “The Delicate US Task of Courting India,” columnist and Hudson Institute fellow Walter Russell Mead observed that one persistent obstacle to stronger US-India ties from Washington’s perspective is “the scarcity of real Indian expertise in America.”
To outsiders, this claim may seem counterintuitive. After all, Indians and Indian-Americans populate many of the country’s prominent South Asia programs in universities and think-tanks. Yet much of this scholarship often proves superficial or strangely detached from the complexities of contemporary India. The roots of this disconnect are longstanding. Many US South Asian Studies centres began with ties to America’s national-security or missionary goals. Even scholars of Indian origin later found that aligning with prevailing academic norms, rather than challenging them, was better for advancing their careers.
The conference had a star-studded panel. The Indian side was represented by the Indian Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Kwatra; the BJP’s Vijay Chauthaiwale; India Foundation (a New Delhi-based think-tank)’s Ram Madhav; and former opposition MP Priyanka Chaturvedi. The US side included former US Ambassador Kenneth Juster and former US State Department officials Nisha Biswal and Kurt Campbell. The Asia Group’s chair, Ashok Malik; the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ Richard Rossow; the Stimson Center’s Elizabeth Threlkeld; and the World Bank’s Hemang Jani were also on the panel. A fireside chat featured RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale with Hudson’s Walter Russell Mead.
After the Hudson conference, a Washington, DC-area reception on “India’s Global Vision and Role in the Emerging World” featured Indian-American community members and scholars such as Walter Andersen and Walter Russell Mead, who met with the Indian delegation.
Although short-term stresses persist in the US-India relationship, the conference emphasized long-term optimism tied to shared democratic values and strategic interests. Continued high-level dialogue is needed to close knowledge gaps and realize the relationship’s full potential.
The conference portrayed the US-India relationship as strategically vital yet at an inflection point, in need of fresh momentum beyond old rhetoric. The conference served as a platform for candid dialogue between policymakers, strategists, and intellectuals from both countries.
The conference addressed three core questions:
* What does the “New India” want on the world stage?
* How is it reshaping its economy?
* What will it take to build a robust US-India partnership?
Discussions highlighted a strategically vital but currently strained bilateral relationship marked by a growing trust deficit, economic frictions, and misaligned expectations. Speakers called for renewed mutual respect, clearer priorities, and sustained high-level engagement to rebuild confidence. Despite short-term stresses, optimism prevailed about long-term convergence in defence, technology, supply chains, and Indo-Pacific stability.
India’s foreign policy reflects a shift from Cold War-era non-alignment to flexible “multi-alignment” in a multipolar world. Speakers noted closer US ties driven by shared concerns over China, yet India maintains strategic independence. Kenneth Juster emphasized India’s commitment to partnerships “without surrendering its independence.” Regional outreach (e.g., to Bangladesh and Nepal) and initiatives such as the Quad, I2U2, and the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor were highlighted as priorities.
Panellists discussed India’s ambitions to integrate into global supply chains, boost manufacturing, and reach ambitious bilateral trade targets (e.g., $500 billion). Concerns included US tariffs, agricultural sensitivities, and net negative FDI flows from the US. Priyanka Chaturvedi questioned the feasibility of certain trade goals amid the pressure.
Speakers described the US-India relationship as durable yet undergoing a “stress test.” A recurring theme was the erosion of mutual trust due to geopolitical shocks, economic frictions (tariffs, visas, immigration uncertainty), and perceived misreadings of each other’s constraints. Ram Madhav stated, “There is a big lack of mutual trust today. We need to build that trust once again.”
Kurt Campbell called the partnership “the most important… for the United States in the 21st century” but noted a “deep, profound hurt” from recent strains. Elizabeth Threlkeld observed that each side tends to view the other’s limits as “choices” while seeing their own as “necessities.” Recommendations focused on rebuilding mutual respect, sensitivity, sustained political engagement, and practical cooperation in defence, energy, space, and supply-chain resilience.
Pakistan did come up a few times during the conference. Despite repeated claims that the US-India partnership has moved beyond “hyphenation,” the country’s shadow continues to loom large in discussions. President Trump’s newfound proximity with Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir has led Pakistan to play a significant role on the international stage, most notably by mediating between the US and Iran in the Middle East conflict.
The Truth Social “hellhole” post by President Trump, where he shared the transcript of the Savage Show, almost derailed the spirit of the conference. That post dampened overall enthusiasm and kept resurfacing, overtly and otherwise, throughout the conference. The Indian conference panellists handled the delicate situation with visible irritation but with grace. After all, this wasn’t the first time a US President had spoken uncharitably about India. President Obama chided India on human rights and religious freedom during an official visit. He said: “In past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs—acts that would have shocked Gandhi-ji,” meaning Mahatma Gandhi.
President Biden, on the other hand, called India xenophobic.
What hurts the US-India relationship the most is that Indian Americans were expecting better from the Trump administration. It is almost impossible to maintain complete harmony in a growing relationship. As the US-India engagements grow, so will the areas of divergence. While Indian Americans remained a loyal voting bloc for the Democratic Party, a significant number broke away to support Mr Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and it did not go unnoticed at the conference. One of the panellists, a former US administration official, engaged in thinly veiled political messaging, gently nudging Indian-American audiences on why their electoral support in 2024 to the GOP was a mistake.
Hosting RSS-linked leaders drew both applause for engagement and criticism from some advocacy groups. Hated by the left-dominated academia, both in the US and India, the RSS brings that missing native insider perspective to the table and provides the plurality of opinions so lacking in contemporary academic discourse. US Congressman Ro Khanna, a strong votary of free speech and dialogue and willing even to talk to the likes of Hasan Piker, was quick to dismiss the RSS to placate Islamist elements.
Reacting to the “hellhole” comment, Indian billionaire Sridhar Vembu made a call to Indians in the US to return to India. However, a befitting response to such ill-advised calls is the advice of Bhagwan Krishna from the Gita:
न दैन्यं न पलायनम् (Na Dainyam Na Palayanam; Sanskrit; No weakness, No flight).
* Avatans Kumar is a linguist and a recipient of the California News Publishers Association and the San Francisco Press Club’s journalism awards.
