Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

The India–US partnership has evolved from a relationship often characterized by Cold War-era divergence and transactional, issue-based cooperation (such as limited trade deals or specific counter-terrorism efforts) to a transformational phase defined by deep strategic, technological, and institutional alignment.

Body:

Evolution: From Divergence to Comprehensive Global Partnership

The Transformational Leap and Global Power Shift

• Strategic Alignment in the Indo-Pacific: The partnership is primarily driven by the need to secure a rules-based order against the backdrop of China’s increasing assertiveness.
  • Security Architecture: The US designated India a Major Defense Partner (2016), followed by foundational agreements (COMCASA, LEMOA) that enhance military interoperability.
    • India’s inclusion in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) is the clearest structural response to the geopolitical power shift, ensuring collective security in the region.
  • Defense Co-production: The focus has shifted to defense technology transfers and co-development (e.g., MQ-9B Reapers), making the security relationship long-term and irreversible.
• Technological Resilience and Decoupling: The Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET) is the hallmark of the transformational phase, aiming to secure technology supply chains and leadership in future domains.
  • Semiconductors and AI: Collaboration in semiconductors (e.g., $825 million investment commitment) and AI is crucial for establishing supply chain resilience and diversifying away from dominant non-democratic suppliers.
  • Space Cooperation: Joint projects like the NASA–ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) and India’s participation in the Artemis Accords place India at the forefront of US-led space governance, a domain of increasing strategic competition.
• Economic Interdependence: The sheer volume of trade creates powerful mutual interests. The US is India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching $131.84 billion in 2024-25, anchoring the relationship beyond military concerns and building economic resilience.

Critical Assessment: Remaining Transactional Frictions

• Divergence on Geopolitical Priorities (Strategic Autonomy): India’s foreign policy requires a careful balancing act in a multipolar world, which often creates friction with the US:
  • Russia Ties: India’s continued defense purchases from Russia (e.g., S-400 missiles) risk US sanctions under CAATSA. India maintains a diversified procurement strategy, signaling that its defense needs outweigh complete alignment with US interests.
  • China Policy: While sharing concerns about China, India avoids overt alignment in the US–China conflict, prioritizing engagement where necessary. This cautious approach frustrates US efforts to consolidate a unified anti-China front.
  • Iran Relations: India continues strategic engagement with Iran (e.g., Chabahar Port) despite US sanctions, reflecting its independent energy and connectivity interests in the Middle East.
• Economic and Regulatory Frictions: Despite large trade volumes, underlying structural issues prevent full economic integration:
  • Trade Barriers: The US often criticizes India for high tariffs and market access restrictions.
    • The withdrawal of India’s preferential trade status under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) in 2019 was a transactional move.
    • More recently, the US has imposed targeted tariffs on India.
  • Digital Trade and Data Sovereignty: India’s push for data localization and stricter data privacy laws (e.g., Digital Personal Data Protection Act) creates tension with US tech giants such as Google and Amazon.
  • Intellectual Property Disputes: India’s patent laws, which prioritize public health and affordable generic drugs, conflict with US demands for stronger IP protection.

Conclusion:

The India–US partnership is undeniably transformational in its strategic logic, driven by the imperatives of the emerging global power shift specifically, securing technological leadership and ensuring a stable, democratic Indo-Pacific. However, it is best described as a “Transformational Alignment with Transactional Frictions.”