The highly anticipated meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump is over, and the Ministry of External Affairs can heave a sigh of relief. No disruptive comments were noted, and Trump, in fact, was lavish in his praise of India's leader. Everything played out well. But this is no time to let our guard down.
First, the meeting itself. Both sides noted 'satisfaction' at the progress in ties, and PM Modi raised the critical issue of the safety of commercial seafarers. Trump's response was swift, asserting that the US would never allow anyone to target India while PM Modi was at the helm.
As a politician, Trump naturally respects a counterpart with massive democratic longevity. He is also unlikely to have forgotten the echoing legacy of the "Abki baar, Trump sarkar" campaign. Whatever the geopolitical ups and downs, he has never denigrated the Indian Prime Minister - a courtesy he has frequently withheld from core allies like French President Emmanuel Macron. Does this personal chemistry alter structural realities? Hardly. But it plays exceptionally well to domestic audiences in both New Delhi and Washington.
Indian policymakers must adjust to a shifting Washington paradigm: democratic credentials no longer carry currency in America's transaction-first strategic partnerships. The current White House administration views geopolitics through a strictly bilateral, commercial lens. The 2020 perception of India as America's most "consequential partner" has given way to a more cautious global posture by Washington.
The White House has consistently chosen selective de-escalation with major adversaries, freezing massive arms sales to Taiwan while managing relations with Beijing. More telling is the reduced salience of regional frameworks, highlighted by the failure to convene the Quadrilateral Summit during India's chairmanships and the symbolic reverting of the Indo-Pacific Command back to its historic moniker, the Pacific Command.
This stems from the reality of the expansionist 'Donroe Doctrine' - a blend of isolationist transactionism and aggressive hemispheric pressure. Look no further than the rhetoric coming out of the State Department, which openly questions the traditional "rules-based international order" in favour of a world redivided by economic muscle.
On paper, bilateral cooperation looks phenomenal. The COMPACT (Catalyzing Opportunities for Military Partnership, Accelerated Commerce & Technology) initiative covers everything from critical minerals to space exploration. However, the operational progress remains sluggish. Defense cooperation has hit supply-chain bottlenecks; GE Aerospace's F404 and F414 engines for India's Light Combat Aircraft have faced persistent delivery delays, choking domestic timelines.
While framework agreements like the Security of Supplies Arrangement (SOSA) have eased some bureaucratic hurdles - and Indian private players like Kalyani Defence and Tata Aerospace are deeply integrated into global aerospace supply chains - the broader commercial climate remains volatile. Threat of sweeping tariffs, strict supply-chain compliance laws, and sanctions targeting third-party entities dealing with Russia or Iran mean that Indian enterprises face a minefield without ironclad political guarantees.
This begs the fundamental question: Are India and the US true strategic partners? If strategy implies a alignment of core economic and military interests, the US agenda is clear: open up the Indian consumer market and accelerate American defense exports. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's recent call at the Shangri-La Dialogue for partners to ramp up defense spending to 3.5% of GDP to buy American hardware underscores this worldview. The ambition is to expand American military and industrial dominance. The question for New Delhi is whether it seeks a balanced strategic partnership or an asymmetric alignment.
In short, the geopolitical trajectory is set. For the current US administration, money speaks louder than shared values. Western capital remains deeply tethered to existing manufacturing hubs, and economic nationalism dominates Washington's thinking.
While New Delhi is rightly moving to diversify its foreign direct investment sources and diplomatic capital, the Indian bureaucracy must recognise that the global discourse has fundamentally changed. Lavish praise from the White House makes for excellent headlines, but yields little structural value. Clout is measured entirely by economic velocity. To sit comfortably at the high table, India must aggressively slash red tape, streamline investor processes, enforce transparency, and modernise its industrial infrastructure. Muscle matters, but as global growth stumbles, economic resilience is what buys a seat at the table. Until then, the wisest course is to keep our heads down and focus on internal consolidation.
(Tara Kartha is a former Director, National Security Council Secretariat)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
