!
A More Focused and Resilient U.S.-India Strategic
Partnership
Arzan Tarapore
INTRODUCTION
The United States has made a “strategic bet” on India. This bet—“that India’s greater role on the
world stage will enhance peace and security”
—was a central pillar of the Obama administration’s
rebalance to Asia, and it remains a central pillar of the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
For nearly two decades, Washington has embraced the strategic logic that it should facilitate the rise
of India as a great power because a stronger India is indispensable in counter-balancing Chinese
power and ambitions. In this policy of strategic altruism, Washington should not be overly
concerned with specific Indian preferences, strategies, or capabilities—the general growth in Indian
power would help to uphold a favorable regional balance of power.
Recently, this strategic logic has begun to show signs of strain. In part, this is the result of emerging
policy divergences on a range of issues from bilateral trade to Indian arms purchases from Russia.
More fundamentally, aside from differences in policy preferences, analysts question whether India
will have the capacity to play a significantly greater role in global and regional security.
India’s
economy and military capabilities have expanded, but only incrementally and arguably at a pace
insufficient to keep up with China’s growing power and assertiveness—or with American
expectations. Even the firmest proponents of this strategic bet, like senior analyst Ashley Tellis, have
openly pondered, “if India continues along this path, does our bet on it become a failed bet?”
As
Indian capabilities and U.S. expectations evolve, how can the two countries work together to uphold
a favorable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific?
It is time for Washington to reframe its strategic bet on India. A close U.S.-India strategic
partnership remains critical to meet the challenge a revisionist China poses. But the United States
must adjust its policy approach to ensure the partnership is more focused on priority goals, and
more resilient to inevitable disruptions. A more focused and resilient partnership would prioritize
certain strategic tasks and geographic areas; in particular, the United States and India should
cooperate to develop a denial strategy in the Indian Ocean.
Hillary Clinton, “America’s Pacific Century,” Foreign Policy, October 11, 2011.
Department of Defense, Indo-Pacific Strategy Report: Preparedness, Partnerships, and Promoting a
Networked Region, June 1, 2019.
Robert D. Blackwill and Ashley J. Tellis, “The India Dividend: New Delhi Remains Washington’s Best Hope
in Asia,” Foreign Affairs 98:5 (September/October 2019): 173-83; and Ashley J. Tellis and C. Raja Mohan,
The Strategic Rationale for Deeper U.S.-Indian Economic Ties: American and Indian Perspectives, (Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, 2015).
For an overview of recent strains in the bilateral relationship, see Jeff Smith, “Modi 2.0: Navigating
Differences and Consolidating Gains in India-U.S. Relations,” Backgrounder No. 3425, (Heritage Foundation,
August 5, 2019).
For example, see Paul Staniland, “America Has High Expectations of India. Can New Delhi Deliver?” War
on the Rocks, February 22, 2018.
Quoted in Sadanand Dhume, “India is Falling Behind China in an Asian Arms Race,” The Wall Street
Journal, February 7, 2019.
