The evolving dynamics between India and the administration of US President Donald Trump have attracted significant attention from Chinese media, with narratives suggesting that New Delhi is anxious about managing its relationship with Washington.
Some Chinese commentaries say that India’s diplomatic efforts are driven by attempts to not ruffle the Trump administration’s feathers, even asserting that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi faced diplomatic setbacks during his recent US visit — developments they say can and should lead India to restore ties with China. However, such interpretations overlook India’s broader strategic calculations.
China views the deepening India-US ties as a response to its assertive moves, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region and along disputed borders. With Trump’s return to the White House, Beijing’s concerns over New Delhi’s strategic positioning have only intensified.
Unlike his first term, where China was a primary target of his economic policies, Trump’s second term appears to have sharpened the attack on China while reinforcing India’s role as a key partner in Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
India’s engagement with the US has evolved beyond a reactionary counterweight to China, with New Delhi skillfully positioning itself as a key player in regional security and economic frameworks, leveraging its ability to negotiate trade and defense partnerships while maintaining strategic autonomy.
The US has responded by acknowledging India’s role beyond mere counterbalancing, increasingly viewing it as an indispensable partner in technology, defense, and trade and economic partnerships.
Chinese media assertion that tensions exist in the India-US relationship, such as trade disputes and immigration, but these do not undermine the broader trajectory of the relationship.
Rather than weakening the partnership, the challenges underscore India’s agency. Chinese analysts say that the US values India as a strategic counter to China rather than a genuine ally, but this underestimates the multi-faceted relationship.
India’s flexible approach to Trump’s insistence on tariff reduction is beginning to pay off, with both sides on the verge of a bilateral free-trade agreement — showing New Dehli’s ease in navigating US ties and the strategic importance it places on the relationship.
Chinese analysts frequently overlook India’s commitment to strategic autonomy. New Delhi’s foreign policy does not rely solely on alignment with the US, but also involves parallel engagements with other major global players, including Russia and the EU. While border tensions with China have undeniably shaped India’s strategic recalibrations, those adjustments are driven by long-term strategic imperatives rather than immediate diplomatic pressures.
Beijing’s skepticism about the depth of India-US ties reflects its anxieties, but India-US cooperation extends beyond geopolitics.
Economically, India’s growing trade with the US — surpassing US$190 billion in 2023 — underscores its increasing global economic influence, whereas its US$136 billion trade with China, despite being substantial, is overshadowed by a significant deficit that exacerbates its economic vulnerabilities vis-a-vis Beijing.
That imbalance reinforces India’s strategic push for supply chain diversification, and greater technological collaboration with the US and its allies in sectors such as semiconductors and defense manufacturing.
Security cooperation between India and the US has also expanded, with agreements on joint military exercises, technology sharing and fighter jet engine codevelopment.
Those highlight India’s shifting defense strategy, which increasingly prioritizes diversified partnerships over dependencies.
While China remains a significant variable in India-US relations, it does not singularly define them.
Contrary to Beijing’s assumptions, New Delhi’s foreign policy is driven neither by transient US political shifts nor external pressure from China, but by its own strategic vision as a pivotal global player — balancing competition and cooperation in a manner that safeguards its national interests.
As geopolitical realities evolve, India’s trajectory would be shaped not by reactive diplomacy, but by proactive, strategic engagements with multiple global stakeholders.
Rahul Mishra is a senior research fellow at the German-Southeast Asian Center of Excellence for Public Policy and Good Governance, Thammasat University, Thailand, and associate professor at the Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
RSS