The Indo-US relationship is too important to be shaped by sentiment or short-term diplomacy. As New Delhi deepens its engagement with Washington, it must negotiate from a position of strength — one that preserves strategic autonomy while maximising long-term benefits. While the rhetoric of shared democratic values and geopolitical alignment is frequently invoked, India’s engagement with the US must be dictated by realpolitik, economic self-sufficiency, and military modernisation — without ceding an inch of its strategic autonomy.
Trade, Visa Barriers, and Migration: Pressing Challenges
While defence and strategic autonomy dominate the Indo-US discourse, economic tensions remain unresolved. Trade tariffs, visa restrictions, and a persistent imbalance in bilateral trade continue to be friction points. Washington’s characterisation of India as protectionist ignores the structural realities of its emerging economy. India’s industrial policies, including production-linked incentives (PLIs), are designed to bolster domestic manufacturing — not as barriers to trade, but as essential strategies for economic self-reliance. Any trade negotiations must recognise India’s right to protect its growing industries, ensuring that tariff adjustments are reciprocal, not one-sided concessions.
Similarly, the visa regime remains a contentious issue. Despite India being a critical source of high-skilled professionals in technology, healthcare, and engineering, restrictive visa policies and rising protectionist tendencies in the US continue to limit opportunities for Indian talent. Work visa caps, delays in green card processing, and tightening regulations on H-1B visas hinder the mobility of Indian professionals while benefiting US corporations that rely on them. India must push for equitable mobility agreements that ensure its talent pool is not merely absorbed into the American workforce but also contributes to India’s domestic innovation and economy.
Meanwhile, illegal migration remains a growing concern, with reports of increasing numbers of Indian nationals attempting unauthorised entry into the US. Addressing this issue requires a balanced approach — cooperation on legal migration frameworks without allowing it to become a diplomatic pressure point.
Defence: Collaboration Without Dependency
With Beijing’s growing military assertiveness, India’s defence modernisation is not optional—it is urgent and non-negotiable. While Washington’s willingness to co-develop critical military technologies—such as General Electric fighter jet engines and Stryker combat vehicles—marks a shift from its earlier reluctance to share cutting-edge defence assets, India must remain clear-eyed. The success of these agreements will be measured not by their transactional value but by their contribution to India’s indigenous defence-industrial base.
Atmanirbhar Bharat cannot succeed if India becomes dependent on American arms. Every defence deal must prioritise technology transfers and long-term capability-building — India must be a co-developer, not just a buyer. This logic extends to India’s broader defence procurement strategy. While the U.S. is a vital partner, India must maintain a diversified network of suppliers to prevent strategic vulnerabilities. Defence engagements with France, Israel, and Russia remain essential to preserving India’s autonomy in military acquisitions. Washington’s track record of leveraging arms deals for geopolitical pressure — including past hesitations in approving key technologies — underscores the risks of excessive dependence.
Economic Integration: Strength on India’s Terms
India will negotiate trade on its own terms. Tariff reductions must be strategic, not one-sided concessions. Washington’s portrayal of India as the “tariff king” is a simplistic and misleading narrative that ignores the developmental imperatives of a rapidly industrialising economy. While selective tariff reductions may serve as a tactical concession to facilitate greater American exports, they must not come at the cost of undermining India’s domestic manufacturing ambitions. Trade negotiations must be approached with a firm resolve to protect national interests, ensuring that recalibrations in tariffs or market access serve India’s long-term industrial and technological objectives rather than being dictated by short-term diplomatic expediencies.
Similarly, as India’s energy demands surge, diversified supply chains are essential to mitigating vulnerabilities. While American exports in nuclear and renewable energy offer viable avenues for cooperation, agreements must be structured to facilitate technology transfers rather than reinforce India’s position as a passive consumer of American resources.
Strategic Autonomy: Beyond Washington’s Inconsistencies
Washington’s foreign policy is driven by interests, not friendships—India must navigate this reality with clear-eyed pragmatism. The abrupt US withdrawal from Afghanistan, its selective engagement in South Asia, and its transactional approach to alliances reinforce the necessity for India to retain its independent foreign policy trajectory.
India’s defence choices will not be dictated by Washington, Moscow, or any other power. The imposition of CAATSA-related sanctions over the S-400 deal is a test—not of India’s loyalty, but of America’s commitment to strategic respect. The legacy of US support for Pakistan, pressures on India over its defence ties with Russia, and unilateral sanction regimes highlight the risks of over-reliance on American commitments.
Beyond bilateral concerns, India must embed the Indo-US partnership within the larger framework of global power realignments. The emergence of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) provides a strategic counterbalance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, offering an alternative connectivity framework that consolidates India’s leadership in a multipolar world order.
New Delhi must also leverage its partnership with the U.S. to push for long-overdue reforms in global governance institutions. Structural changes in the UN Security Council, international financial institutions, and technology governance frameworks must be high on India’s diplomatic agenda. India’s rise cannot be fully realised if global decision-making remains frozen in post-war power structures that do not reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. Washington’s rhetorical support for India’s permanent membership in the UNSC must translate into concrete action, and New Delhi must press for tangible commitments rather than symbolic endorsements.
A Partnership of Equals, Not Acquiescence
Personal political equations between leaders may accelerate diplomatic processes, but enduring partnerships are built on institutional frameworks, not individual rapport. While Narendra Modi and Donald Trump shared a pragmatic and transactional diplomatic approach, India’s foreign policy must remain state-driven rather than personality-centric. A sustainable Indo-US strategic partnership necessitates policy commitments that endure beyond electoral cycles in either country.
India is not a junior partner, nor a passive ally—it is a rising power with its own trajectory. Strategic parity, not subordination, must define the Indo-U.S. relationship. New Delhi must negotiate, not accommodate. If Washington genuinely seeks a steadfast partner in the Indo-Pacific, it must accommodate India’s distinct strategic trajectory rather than attempting to mould it into a derivative extension of American foreign policy.
—The author, Dr. Srinath Sridharan ( @ssmumbai), is a Corporate advisor & Independent Director on Corporate Boards. The views expressed are personal.
Read his previous articles here