Twists and turns in our ties with America

Source: The post “Twists and turns in our ties with America” has been created, based on “Twists and turns in our ties with America” published in “Business line ” on 04th February 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-2- International Relations

Context: India–US relations since Independence have displayed a repeated cycle of initial resistance followed by gradual compromise. This pattern indicates that India often begins with assertive posturing to protect strategic autonomy but later adjusts due to practical constraints. It reflects a gap between ideological aspirations and material capabilities. This recurring behaviour is influenced by domestic politics, economic limitations, historical experiences, and institutional weaknesses. These factors together shape India’s cautious and sometimes contradictory foreign policy approach towards the United States.

Historical Pattern

1. From 1947 to 1962, India adopted non-alignment under Jawaharlal Nehru and avoided close engagement with the US. Nehru believed that moral leadership and independence from power blocs would enhance India’s global standing. However, this idealism reduced strategic support during crises such as the 1962 China war.
2. After China’s aggression in 1962, India had to seek American military and economic assistance. This demonstrated that complete distance from major powers was not feasible in times of national emergency. It marked the first major instance of adjustment after resistance.
3. During the 1960s and 1970s, India experienced severe economic stress and food shortages. In 1966, Indira Gandhi accepted currency devaluation under US and World Bank pressure to secure aid. This showed that economic vulnerability limited India’s diplomatic independence.
4. In 1971, India signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation with the Soviet Union. This alignment reduced American trust and reinforced Cold War divisions. As a result, India–US relations remained strained for many years.
5. In the late 1980s, India rejected IMF assistance despite rising fiscal and external deficits. Leaders such as Rajiv Gandhi and V.P. Singh believed that accepting Western loans would compromise sovereignty. However, this delayed reforms and worsened the crisis.
6. In 1991, India faced a severe balance of payments crisis and had foreign exchange reserves for only a few weeks. The government was forced to approach the IMF and implement structural reforms. This clearly demonstrated the cost of prolonged defiance.
7. In 1998, India conducted nuclear tests to assert strategic autonomy and regional power status. The United States responded with economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. India later engaged in negotiations to normalise relations.
8. By 2005, India signed the Civil Nuclear Agreement with the US. India accepted international safeguards and regulatory commitments to gain access to nuclear technology. This represented strategic accommodation after years of confrontation.
9. From 2016 onwards, India and the US strengthened defence and security cooperation through agreements like LEMOA and COMCASA. However, trade disputes and protectionist policies created tensions. India again adjusted its policies under economic and strategic pressure.

Reasons for the recurring Pattern

1. India’s foreign policy is strongly influenced by the idea of strategic autonomy inherited from the non-alignment movement. Policymakers fear that close alignment may restrict independent decision-making. This mindset often leads to initial resistance to American initiatives.
2. Domestic politics plays a significant role in shaping India–US relations. Political parties and interest groups have frequently portrayed the US as imperialistic to mobilise popular support. This limits the government’s diplomatic flexibility.
3. India’s economy has historically suffered from low growth, limited reserves, and dependence on foreign capital. These weaknesses force India to seek Western assistance during crises. As a result, ideological resistance gives way to economic necessity.
4. Indian leaders have often overestimated India’s strategic importance and bargaining power. They have assumed that the US needs India for regional stability and China containment. This belief has sometimes led to delayed compromise.
5. Institutional weaknesses in foreign policy formulation have also contributed to inconsistency. Decision-making is often concentrated in a few individuals without long-term planning mechanisms. This reduces continuity across governments.

Consequences of This Approach

1. Frequent shifts between resistance and cooperation have reduced India’s credibility in international relations. Partners find it difficult to predict India’s long-term commitments. This weakens trust.
2. Inconsistent policies have reduced India’s negotiating leverage. When India ultimately compromises after prolonged resistance, it often does so from a weaker position. This limits favourable outcomes.
3. Delayed integration with global economic systems has slowed India’s development. Hesitation in embracing reforms and trade liberalisation has reduced competitiveness. This has long-term economic costs.
4. Reactive diplomacy has prevented India from shaping international agendas. Instead of setting rules, India often responds to external pressure. This reduces its influence in global governance.

Exception: Indira Gandhi

1. Indira Gandhi followed a relatively consistent policy of maintaining distance from the United States.
2. Her alignment with the Soviet Union provided strategic security and diplomatic support. This reduced uncertainty in foreign policy.
3. However, excessive dependence on the Soviet bloc limited India’s diplomatic flexibility.
4. After the collapse of the USSR, India had to rapidly reorient its foreign policy. This exposed the risks of one-sided alignment.

Contemporary Relevance

1. The rise of China and increasing geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific have made the US an important strategic partner for India.
2. Cooperation is essential for maintaining regional balance. This requires stable relations.
3. Access to advanced technology, defence equipment, and global markets depends heavily on relations with the US.
4. A confrontational approach can harm India’s development goals. Therefore, pragmatism is necessary.

Way Forward

1. India must develop a realistic assessment of its capabilities and limitations. Foreign policy should be based on national interests rather than ideological symbolism. This will reduce unnecessary confrontation.
2. Issue-based diplomacy should be prioritised. India should cooperate with the US in areas of convergence and manage differences through dialogue. This will improve mutual trust.
3. Strengthening domestic economic capacity is essential. A strong economy reduces vulnerability to external pressure. This enhances strategic autonomy in real terms.
4. Institutional reforms are needed to ensure policy continuity. Strengthening the Ministry of External Affairs and strategic think tanks can improve long-term planning. This will promote consistency.

Conclusion

India’s repeated cycle of defiance followed by accommodation reflects internal contradictions in policy thinking. It shows the tension between the desire for autonomy and the reality of dependence. This pattern has weakened India’s strategic position. A mature foreign policy requires balancing ideals with pragmatism and autonomy with engagement. Through consistency, institutional strength, and economic resilience, India can build a stable and mutually beneficial partnership with the United States.

Question: “India’s relations with the United States have followed a recurring pattern of initial defiance followed by eventual accommodation.” Critically examine this pattern in the context of India’s foreign policy since Independence.

Source: Business Standard