On his recent visit to India, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio predictably touted India as one of the US’ “most important strategic partners,” citing the two countries’ shared values, “people-to-people ties,” and strategic alignment on “all of the key issues that will define the new century.”
However, this familiar language of partnership rings increasingly hollow.
Much has been said about the impact US President Donald Trump’s public insults and weaponization of tariffs have had on the US’ relations with India. However, the bilateral relationship was under pressure well before Trump’s return to the White House last year.
In recent years, as India’s regional standing has been steadily eroded by China’s expanding strategic footprint, the US has pursued policies in India’s strategic backyard that have disregarded Indian interests — and sometimes run directly counter to them.
Bangladesh is a case in point. After the military-backed ouster of Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s government in 2024, the US endorsed regime change. However, India knew this posed serious risks, which have since materialized: Bangladesh is now gripped by Islamist violence, jeopardizing stability on India’s eastern flank.
Then there is Myanmar. Since the military’s 2021 overthrow of a civilian government, the US has maintained a punitive approach toward the junta, including tough sanctions and “non-lethal” military aid for rebel groups, despite the security risks this has created along India’s sensitive northeastern frontier.
In March, a US citizen, along with six Ukrainian nationals, was arrested in India for allegedly entering the country’s northeast without permits and crossing into Myanmar to train and arm anti-junta fighters for drone warfare.
The US has also begun treating Nepal — a country bound to India through geography, culture, and economics — as a strategic priority in its own right, rather than as part of its India policy. In recent years, high-level US officials have visited Kathmandu more frequently, often without making the once-customary stop in New Delhi.
Trump has made matters much worse, not least by pursuing closer ties with Pakistan.
Never mind that Pakistan continues to provide safe haven, as well as military and intelligence aid, to terrorist groups, or that Pakistani army chief Asim Munir staged a constitutional coup in November last year.
Trump’s family members and business associates have struck lucrative deals in the country, and that is apparently good enough reason for the Trump administration to revive dangerous strategic dynamics on the subcontinent.
The US has even begun taking a more conciliatory approach toward China. Though the strategic competition between the two superpowers remains intense, Trump’s recent shift toward accommodation in some areas has created considerable uncertainty — not least for India, whose value to the US has long been rooted in its ability to act as a regional counterweight to China.
But while the US has long viewed India as a critical democratic bulwark against Chinese dominance in the Indo-Pacific, it also balks at the idea of Indian regional dominance.
As US Assistant Secretary of State Samir Paul Kapur explained in February, the US is seeking to prevent any single power from gaining too much influence in South Asia. Kapur’s remarks echoed the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS), according to which the US “cannot allow any nation to become so dominant” that it could “threaten [US] interests” and must maintain “global and regional balances of power.”
In the US’ view, a more pluralistic regional order is inherently more stable and favorable to US interests than one dominated by any country — even a close “strategic partner.” Unlike its 2017 predecessor, the NSS barely mentions India, noting only that the US wants to “improve commercial (and other) relations” with the country, in order to encourage it to “contribute to Indo-Pacific security.”
The US’ reservations are not just geopolitical. “We are not going to make the same mistakes with India that we made with China 20 years ago,” US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said on a recent visit to New Delhi, letting it “develop all these markets” and then start “beating” the US in “a lot of commercial things.”
The message is clear: the US now views India less as a strategic partner to be nurtured than as a regional and economic rival to be contained.
India must adapt to this new reality, which demands a fundamental shift in its strategic thinking. India can no longer count on its close relationship with the US to sustain its influence across South Asia and beyond.
Instead, it must cultivate regional influence through economic engagement, political sensitivity toward neighboring states, and the delivery of tangible public goods that appeal to smaller countries.
The US should rethink its approach as well. It might want a more diversified regional order, but this cannot come at the expense of its partnership with India, with which it continues to share important interests, from managing China’s rise to preserving stability across the Indo-Pacific. Policies that systematically weaken India’s position in its own neighborhood risk undermining these shared objectives.
The Trump administration seems to hope that the US and India can remain global partners, even as they become regional rivals.
However, this will be no easy feat, and the outcome will shape not only the future of the bilateral relationship, but also the strategic landscape in South Asia and beyond.
Brahma Chellaney, professor emeritus of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, is the author of Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Last year, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) turned the Double Ten National Day ceremony into a platform for grievances against the government. Yesterday, standing before the president and foreign dignitaries, he warned against Taiwan becoming a “false democracy, in reality a dictatorship.” Then he called for unity. Democratic leaders must tolerate criticism, even on ceremonial occasions, but Han misused his position and a national celebration to insinuate that Taiwan’s elected president was steering the country toward dictatorship and cast himself as a statesman offering reconciliation. Han asked how Taiwan’s security should be examined, using a medical analogy. If he insists on playing
RSS