[Answered] Analyze the claim that the upward trajectory of India-US relations has stalled due to shifting geopolitical priorities. Evaluate whether India needs a new foreign policy paradigm to navigate a more transactional bilateral environment while maintaining its strategic autonomy.

Introduction

For nearly 25 years, India–US relations followed a bipartisan upward arc; however, the resurgence of transactional geopolitics, as noted by Brookings and CFR analyses, signals a plateau demanding strategic reassessment by New Delhi.

A Plateau in a Once-Ascending Partnership and From Strategic Convergence to Transactional Uncertainty

1. Since the 2005 Civil Nuclear Agreement, India–US ties were framed as a strategic exception—anchored in shared democratic values, defence interoperability, and Indo-Pacific convergence.
2. Yet, by 2025–26, Washington’s inward-looking posture and ‘America First 2.0’ have diluted this exceptionalism.
3. Foreign policy is increasingly filtered through domestic political calculus, trade balances, and sanctions logic, rather than long-term strategic convergence.

Evidence of the Stalled Trajectory

1. Economic and Trade Frictions: The imposition of steep tariffs on Indian exports and threats of secondary sanctions over Russian energy imports reflect a coercive trade diplomacy. Despite India being the US’s 10th-largest trading partner (bilateral trade ~$190 billion in 2023), market access is now weaponised, undermining trust built through mechanisms like the Trade Policy Forum.
2. Strategic Dilution of the Indo-Pacific Vision: Ambiguity in US commitments to Taiwan and a visible deprioritisation of the Quad weaken the foundational assumption that India is central to America’s Indo-Pacific strategy. This contradicts earlier doctrines such as the Free and Open Indo-Pacific, reducing predictability for Indian planners.
3. Rhetoric–Reality Gap: While US diplomatic rhetoric continues to emphasise partnership, unilateral actions—tightened H1-B norms, selective climate disengagement, and diaspora-related anxieties—signal a retreat from multilateral leadership, as highlighted in OECD and UN reports on global governance erosion.

Structural Drivers Behind the Shift

1. Relative Power Transition: The US faces a relative decline vis-à-vis China, leading to selective accommodation with Beijing, particularly over rare earths and supply chains. This creates a hierarchy of partners, where India’s strategic leverage is conditional rather than intrinsic.
2. Personalised and Populist Diplomacy: Foreign policy under strong executive personalities becomes volatile. As realist scholars like Stephen Walt argue, such systems privilege deal-making over institutions, increasing uncertainty for middle powers like India.

Does India Need a New Foreign Policy Paradigm?

1. From Strategic Partnership to Strategic Hedging: India must recalibrate from alignment optimism to strategic hedging, avoiding overdependence on any single power. This involves deepening ties with the EU (FTA negotiations), ASEAN, Africa, and West Asia, consistent with multi-alignment doctrine.
2. Transactional Reciprocity: In a quid-pro-quo environment, India should explicitly link cooperation in defence, critical minerals, and technology to outcomes in trade access and mobility. This reflects a shift from normative to interest-based diplomacy.
3. Strengthening Regional Multilateralism: With uncertain US commitment, India must assume greater responsibility in BIMSTEC, IORA, and the Indian Ocean Region, aligning with Mahanian sea-power logic and SAGAR doctrine.

Why the Partnership Still Has a ‘Geopolitical Floor’

1. The China Constraint: Despite frictions, China’s rise ensures a minimum level of India–US cooperation in defence, intelligence sharing, and maritime security—preventing a complete rupture.
2. Technology and Diaspora Linkages: Initiatives like iCET, semiconductor collaboration, and a 4.5-million-strong Indian diaspora act as institutional shock absorbers, sustaining long-term engagement beyond executive volatility.

Reimagining Strategic Autonomy and Autonomy Through Capability, Not Distance

1. India’s response must centre on accelerating growth, technological self-reliance, and defence indigenisation (Atmanirbhar Bharat).
2. As Kautilya’s Arthashastra suggests, power determines choice, not vice versa.

Conclusion

Echoing Justice Radhabinod Pal’s realist internationalism and President Murmu’s call for confident engagement, India must practise strategic autonomy by managing differences pragmatically, not by retreat, in a transactional world.