The writer is an economist, anchor, and geopolitical analyst
and the President of All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States under President Donald Trump’s administration has been heralded by some as a milestone in India-U.S. relations, focusing on defence cooperation and trade. In the complex tapestry of international relations, Modi’s visit to the U.S. has painted a vivid picture of strategic alignment, trade negotiations, and defence cooperation. This visit, rich with symbolism and substance, not only underscores the evolving dynamics of the India-U.S. partnership but also highlights the broader geopolitical manoeuvres at play, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. One of the most tangible outcomes of Modi’s visit was the discussion around military hardware, with Trump announcing plans to increase U.S. military sales to India by “billions of dollars” and to ultimately provide India with F-35 stealth fighter jets. However, a deeper, more critical analysis suggests this visit might represent indeed a strategic misstep for India, potentially destabilizing the regional balance and complicating its geopolitical position. One of the headline outcomes of the visit was the promise of military hardware, specifically the potential sale of F-35 jets to India. While this appears a significant gain for India’s military modernization, it comes with strings attached. These commitments can be seen as an imbalance rather than a partnership. This move is not just about the hardware; it’s a strategic pivot for India, traditionally reliant on Russian arms, towards a more diversified defence portfolio. The U.S., seeking to counterbalance China’s influence, finds India a natural ally with shared concerns over Beijing’s assertiveness. However, the promise of F-35 jets should be viewed with a critical eye. While it’s a significant gesture, the actual transfer of such technology involves not only financial transactions but also a complex web of security agreements, industrial cooperation, and political commitments. The U.S. has historically been cautious about sharing its most advanced technologies, especially with nations not in NATO or traditional close allies. Thus, this deal could be seen as both a carrot to strengthen ties and a long-term strategic investment by the U.S. in India’s military capabilities. The geopolitical implications of this visit are profound. Trump and Modi’s discussions on defence cooperation are set against the backdrop of the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at ensuring free, open, and inclusive regions where no single power dominates. The promise of military hardware like the F-35, alongside discussions on energy imports where India commits to significantly boosting U.S. LNG purchases, positions India as a counterweight to China. However, India bit ignored its traditional ties with Russia, especially amidst ongoing global tensions involving Ukraine, and its economic engagements with China, which despite border tensions, remains a significant trade partner. On the trade front, Modi’s visit was marked by a mutual recognition of the need to address the trade deficit. India has historically been protective of its markets, but concessions on tariffs for U.S. goods like motorcycles, metals, and tech products show a pragmatic approach to secure broader strategic benefits. Trump’s policy of reciprocal tariffs, however, casts a shadow over this cooperation. While Modi’s visit temporarily alleviated some tariff threats, the underlying tension on trade practices and market access remains, potentially influencing future bilateral relations. Trump’s newly announced “reciprocal tariffs” propose that foreign import taxes on US goods be answered at rates equal to what each country imposes. Trump has long criticised India for its high tariff rate on foreign goods, even reportedly calling Modi the “king of tariffs”. But at the meeting, the two leaders announced they would pursue a “framework” for greater cooperation. While the media and official statements are rife with optimism about “mega-partnerships” and mutual prosperity, a critical analysis must question the depth and sustainability of these gains.
Modi’s visit to the U.S. might not have been the diplomatic success it was initially celebrated to be. Instead, it could mark a moment where regional balance is tipped, and India’s strategic position becomes more aligned, potentially at the cost of its historical non-alignment policy.
The two leaders agreed to increase trade between their countries, including through partnerships on space travel, artificial intelligence and energy production and set the target of more than doubling the bilateral trade to attain $500bn by 2030. As of 2024, total trade between the two countries amounted to an estimated $129.2bn, according to US government statistics. The US currently has a $45.7bn trade deficit with India, with the South Asian country exporting $87.4bn of goods to the US. Trump, however, has publicly expressed his displeasure with such deficits, promising to narrow them and increase US exports. The US president also teased an international infrastructure similar to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, linking allies across the world. Trump was likely referring to the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, announced in September 2023. Facilitated by the US, the proposed corridor is meant to run through the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Greece, but its future has come under a cloud amid Israel’s war on Gaza. The defence deals, while lucrative, involve significant costs not just in monetary terms but in strategic autonomy for India. The U.S. gains market access for its military exports, but at what cost to India’s ability to make independent strategic decisions? Moreover, the narrative of a seamless, strategic partnership often glosses over the complexities of dealing with Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy, where immediate economic benefits for the U.S. might overshadow long-term strategic partnerships. The geopolitical chess in the Indo-Pacific is also fraught with risks of entangling India in conflicts, not of its making, especially if the U.S.-China rivalry escalates. By increasing reliance on U.S. military technology, India might find its strategic autonomy compromised. The U.S. has conditions for technology transfers, including clauses on use and maintenance which could bind India closer to U.S. geopolitical objectives. The financial aspect of acquiring such advanced technology could strain India’s defence budget, potentially diverting resources from other critical areas like social welfare or infrastructure. This move might be viewed by neighbours like Pakistan and China as India aligning too closely with the U.S., escalating regional tensions and possibly triggering an arms race. The visit also touched upon trade, with some concessions made by India to reduce tariffs on U.S. goods. However, the U.S. appears to have gained more in immediate economic terms, with India reducing tariffs to appease Trump’s administration, which has a history of using tariffs as leverage. This could set a precedent for future negotiations where India might be on the back foot. While India made concessions, the U.S. has not significantly addressed India’s concerns, particularly around visa issues for Indian professionals or market access for Indian goods, suggesting an imbalance in the economic partnership. While India is a key player in the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific vision, this visit might have pushed India too far into the U.S. camp, at the risk of alienating other partners like Russia or even creating friction with China at a time when de-escalation might be more beneficial. The visit might have painted India as a U.S. proxy in Asia, potentially undermining India’s historical stance of non-alignment and strategic autonomy, which is crucial for its foreign policy. An overemphasis on U.S.-India military ties could lead to a security dilemma in South Asia, where Pakistan might feel compelled to deepen its ties with China, and China might perceive a direct threat, thus unsettling the fragile balance. The visit did not significantly advance discussions on climate change, human rights, or technology transfer in non-defence sectors, areas where India’s interests align more with broader global consensus rather than specific bilateral gains. The visit’s portrayal in media has often been overly optimistic, glossing over the nuanced implications. The defence deals, for instance, are more symbolic than transformative without concrete timelines or confirmations. India’s move towards closer defence ties with the U.S. might be strategic, but it risks long-term autonomy, particularly if U.S. policy becomes more isolationist or if there’s a shift in U.S. foreign policy priorities.
Modi’s joint statement with Trump directly accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorism, potentially leading to increased international scrutiny, pressure on Pakistan and isolation. This could manifest as pressure from global entities like the UN and strained relations with the US and India, complicating diplomatic interactions. The US might reconsider its military and economic aid to Pakistan, based on perceived inaction against terrorism. In response, Pakistan might need to bolster its anti-terrorism measures internally, which could affect domestic politics or civil liberties. Geopolitically, this might isolate Pakistan further, pushing it towards allies like China, while also prompting a diplomatic push to counter the narrative by showcasing its counter-terrorism efforts and possibly critiquing India’s policies in Kashmir. The visit has further solidified U.S.-India defense, trade, and technological collaborations which potentially position India as a stronger counterbalance to China in the Indo-Pacific region, indirectly affecting Pakistan’s strategic calculus. Economically, Pakistan could face reduced foreign investment or trade. Domestically, these accusations might fuel nationalist sentiments, impacting the government’s popularity and policy direction. Pakistan must thus carefully manage its foreign policy, balancing international relations, domestic politics, and its fight against terrorism. Although, the tariff discussions, although not directly punitive to Pakistan, indicate the U.S.’s strategic economic alignment with India. For Pakistan’s Geopolitical Strategy: Strengthen relations with China, particularly through initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), to counterbalance the U.S.-India axis. Engage with other Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries to broaden economic and strategic alliances; Intensify domestic and international counter-terrorism measures to address global concerns, aiming to change the narrative around Pakistan’s involvement with terrorism. This includes not only military actions but also socio-economic programs to prevent radicalization; Focus on reducing economic dependencies by diversifying trade partners and enhancing domestic economic stability. Engage in trade diplomacy that promotes Pakistan as a viable trade corridor, especially leveraging CPEC for access to Central Asia; Utilize Pakistan’s geographical advantage to become a key player in energy and trade routes, particularly in the wake of U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. This could involve negotiations for better relations with neighbours, including India, for economic benefits; Increase cultural and educational exchanges, promote tourism, and engaging in global issues like climate change to enhance Pakistan’s international image. Highlight Pakistan’s contributions to global peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts; Implement a robust communication strategy to counter negative narratives and to project Pakistan as a responsible and proactive member of the international community, particularly in relation to security and stability in South Asia; Invest in indigenous defence technology and seek partnerships beyond the traditional U.S.-centric alliances. Collaborate with countries like Russia for defence technology that could reduce reliance on external powers; Play an active role in international bodies like the United Nations, SCO, and SAARC to not only voice concerns but also to propose solutions that align with global interests, thereby increasing Pakistan’s influence. By implementing these strategies, Pakistan can aim to mitigate the impacts of Modi’s U.S. visit on its strategic position, using its geopolitical leverage to foster a more balanced regional influence and security environment. Modi’s visit to the U.S. might not have been the diplomatic success it was initially celebrated to be. Instead, it could mark a moment where regional balance is tipped, and India’s strategic position becomes more aligned, potentially at the cost of its historical non-alignment policy. The true test of this visit’s success or failure will be seen in how India navigates its relations, not just with the U.S. but with all its neighbours and global partners in the coming years. As India navigates its path between the U.S.’s strategic interests and its own policy of strategic independence, the true test will be in how these newfound alliances translate into actionable policies that benefit both nations without compromising one’s sovereignty or strategic goals. The dance of diplomacy continues, with each step watched by the world for its geopolitical significance.