How Is Washington’s Islamabad Duplicity Driving India’s Multipolar Push?

The recent meeting on June 18, 2025, between US President Donald Trump and Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, Asim Munir, at the White House has certainly struck a sour note in New Delhi. This encounter, where President Trump publicly praised Pakistan, declaring “I love Pakistan” and expressing his honour at meeting Munir, felt particularly jarring. For India, which had hoped for a more pro-India stance from a Trump 2.0 administration, such favourable remarks towards Pakistan seemed deeply unsettling, potentially viewed as an attempt to instigate or undermine India's standing, especially given Washington's stated desire for a stronger relationship with New Delhi.

However, there's another crucial aspect to this meeting: the conspicuous absence of a photograph of Trump and Munir together. This was undoubtedly a strategic choice by Trump, likely aimed at avoiding any lasting photographic evidence that could link him to Munir in the future. Why such a move? It suggests that Trump is focused on short-term gains from this meeting, potentially eyeing access to Pakistan's air bases if the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates. While this might align with an “America First” foreign policy, it raises a critical question for India: at what cost to its own alliance? Washington might believe it can pursue such interests now and still convince India of its trustworthiness later, but this is a deeply flawed assumption.

How can India fully trust a partner that makes false claims, such as President Trump repeatedly asserting he stopped the war between India and Pakistan? This narrative directly contradicts the Indian government's clear statement that the ceasefire occurred at Pakistan's request. Such remarks are seen as provocative attempts to take credit, potentially even to bolster a bid for the Nobel Peace Prize, rather than a genuine reflection of diplomatic efforts.

Indeed, these incidents are not isolated. The Trump administration's actions have, at times, appeared distinctly anti-India. This includes imposing tariffs on Indian goods, disturbing reports of Indian citizens being deported from the US in military aircraft, subjected to handcuffs and shackles upon arrival in Amritsar, and other instances of mistreatment faced by Indian students. Adding to this complex picture are statements from US officials, such as US Central Command Chief General Michael Kurilla's assertion that “Pakistan has been a phenomenal partner in the counter terrorism world… [we] have to have relationship with Pakistan and India.” Such remarks, while balancing diplomatic needs, can be perceived in New Delhi as an unhelpful duality, failing to fully acknowledge India's strategic concerns and past grievances.

“India's Great-Power Delusions”: A Washington Subtext?

Another point of contention is the recent article, “India’s Great-Power Delusions: How New Delhi’s Grand Strategy Thwarts Its Grand Ambitions,” published in the American magazine Foreign Affairs. This opinion piece, released by the non-profit think tank Council on Foreign Relations amidst this chain of events, feels like an indirect message from Washington to New Delhi. The article argues that India's current GDP growth rate of 6% cannot match China’s economic might, making peer competition impossible. It suggests India’s pursuit of a multipolar world undermines the utility of a US alliance against China, and that India’s perceived “illiberal democracy” is weakening its global influence and stability. The piece also points to a supposed contradiction in India’s reliance on US military equipment while resisting alliances, and criticises India’s economic model as inward and protectionist. While presented as analysis, the article's undercurrent appears to be a veiled suggestion that India's only option for security and prosperity is to unconditionally align fully with Washington.

India's Enduring Strength and Sovereign Stance

However, Washington must acknowledge the deep historical foundations and inherent strengths of Indian civilisation, which has withstood numerous foreign incursions. Concerning China, the US must know that India's strategic importance is undeniable, particularly its control over the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, vital gatekeepers of the Malacca Strait through which 60% of Chinese energy imports flow. India has surpassed China in population and is set to provide the world's largest youth workforce, with a median age of 28.4. Furthermore, India’s military prowess is evident: during the 2020 Galwan clashes, India swiftly deployed significant troops to the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Indian forces possess unmatched expertise in mountain warfare, honed through deployments in challenging terrains like the Siachen Glacier, the world's highest battlefield.

Why is India’s demand for a multipolar world justified?

A review of how the US has treated India since its independence in 1947 provides crucial context for India's consistent advocacy for a multipolar world.

1. Cold War Alignments: In May 1954, the US signed a Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement with Pakistan to counter Soviet influence, leading to Pakistan joining SEATO and CENTO. These alliances provided Pakistan with substantial military and economic aid. During the 1965 India-Pakistan War, sparked by Pakistan’s “Operation Gibraltar,” US-supplied equipment was utilised against India. The 1971 war, culminating in Bangladesh’s independence, saw the US under President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger overtly supporting Pakistan. The US even dispatched the Seventh Fleet (USS Enterprise) into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. Declassified White House tapes reveal Nixon’s derogatory remarks, calling then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a “witch” and expressing racist contempt for Indians.

2. Afghan War and Kashmir: After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US formed a close alliance with Pakistan under General Zia-ul-Haq, making Pakistan the primary conduit for US aid to Afghan mujahideen. From 1981 to 1988, the US provided Pakistan with $3.2 billion in military and economic aid, including advanced weapons like F-16 jets and Stinger missiles. Alarmingly, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is widely reported to have used US-funded resources to support militancy in Kashmir starting in the late 1980s, fuelling the insurgency that escalated after 1989 through the diversion of US-supplied arms and training.

3. Post-9/11 "War on Terror": Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Pakistan, under General Pervez Musharraf, became a key US ally in the "War on Terror." The US lifted sanctions imposed after Pakistan’s 1998 nuclear tests and provided over $23 billion in security aid and military reimbursements from 2001 to 2018. In 2004, Pakistan was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA). Despite Pakistan's alleged involvement in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks (executed by Lashkar-e-Taiba), and widespread understanding of Pakistan’s “double game,” the US continued its support due to Afghan priorities. Even after Osama bin Laden was found in Abbottabad, the US did not impose harsh sanctions on Pakistan. In the 1999 Kargil War, where Pakistan’s military infiltrated Indian-administered Kashmir, the US under President Bill Clinton initially took a neutral stance, later siding with India as the extent of Pakistan's aggression became clear.

4. Nuclear Parity and Global Recognition: When India conducted Pokhran-I in 1974, it led to the formation of the US-backed Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to deny India nuclear technology. Again, in 1998, when India declared its nuclear capability, the US imposed harsh sanctions under the Glenn Amendment, including bans on military sales, aid suspension, and blocking of international loans. While the US offers verbal support for India’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council, actual progress remains elusive, in stark contrast to its swift backing for NATO expansion when its interests align. While the US argues its support for Pakistan was driven by global strategic goals, Pakistan has consistently leveraged US aid to bolster its anti-India posture, especially concerning Kashmir.

A Path Forward for Mutual Respect and Strategic Partnership

Washington must understand that India, like the US, is a sovereign nation that will prioritise an “India First” approach. Any undue pressure driven solely by US interests will inevitably strain the relationship. Turning a blind eye to Pakistan’s alleged proxy war through terrorism or China’s expansionist policies in the region makes calls for a deeper alliance a "pathless pursuit" – this is not the age of imperialism. Remarks like US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s statement that “Buying Russian Weapons ‘Rubbed the US Wrong Way’” could be avoided if the US acknowledged the historical complexities of India-US ties and put its own ties with Pakistan into perspective.

India values its foreign relationship with America, underscored by the approximately 5.4 million people of Indian origin or ancestry residing in the US. This community contributes significantly to the US economy and society, accounting for an estimated 5% to 6% of all US income taxes, totalling approximately $300 billion annually.

For a robust 21st-century relationship, Washington must also take concrete steps:

1. Acknowledge India as a Sovereign Partner: The US must accept that India will not be a “camp follower” but a sovereign partner acting in its own interest, respecting India’s independent foreign policy choices, including its relationships with Russia and partners in the Middle East.

2. Full Support for Global Integration: This means actively backing India’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council, facilitating its entry into the OECD, expanding the G7 to include India, and offering membership to the International Energy Agency.

3. Countering Threats: The US must unequivocally condemn China’s “salami-slicing tactics” in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. It must also provide tangible support in countering Pakistan-based terrorism by designating Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and other groups as primary global terror threats.

4. Deepening Technological and Defence Cooperation: The US should swiftly advance defence cooperation by accelerating co-development and transfer of advanced military technologies under the DTTI. This includes expediting the $1 billion F414 jet engine deal for India’s LCA Mk2, Javelin missiles, and Stryker vehicles, while exploring fifth-generation fighter jet technologies (e.g., F-35) and undersea warfare systems, as reaffirmed in February 2025. Urgent reform of ITAR for India, a Major Defence Partner, is crucial to streamline trade and MRO. Finalising the Reciprocal Defence Procurement Agreement would further ensure interoperability.

5. No Mediation on Kashmir: Most importantly, the US should refrain from internationalising the Kashmir issue or offering any mediation. India has never accepted, and will never accept, any third-party intervention in its bilateral dispute with Pakistan.

A Theatre Playbook of Trump’s Diplomacy

President Trump’s public remarks on diplomacy often reflect his signature style, shaped as much by his media persona as by any traditional statecraft. As captured in the biopic The Apprentice, his three central rules of winning define his approach: “attack, attack, attack,” “admit nothing, deny everything,” and always declare victory. Seen through this lens, his repeated claims, such as brokering a ceasefire between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, appear more like political theatre than diplomacy, aimed at commanding headlines rather than delivering substance.

In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Trump vowed to end the Russia–Ukraine war on the first day of his presidency, another sweeping promise that has yet to materialise. Meanwhile, the reality on the ground remains grim. The conflict between Israel and Gaza continues unabated, tensions between Israel and Iran are escalating, and even within the United States, unrest like the riots in Los Angeles reminds us that peace at home or abroad is rarely won by declaration alone.

Adding another layer to this narrative is the recent warmth President Trump has shown towards Pakistan. This shift comes alongside reports of a business arrangement involving the Pakistan Crypto Council and World Liberty Financial, a decentralised finance venture in which Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner are reportedly majority stakeholders of around 60%. In parallel, Pakistan’s army chief General Munir’s endorsement of Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize raises further questions, blurring the line between diplomacy, commercial interests, and political messaging in ways that merit scrutiny.

In conclusion, the U.S.-India relationship is a delicate balance, and for it to grow stronger, Washington must move past short-term deals and fully respect India’s independent foreign policy. It needs to clearly denounce Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism and back India against China’s aggressive moves in the Indo-Pacific. Any heavy-handed demands from the White House would be seen as a direct challenge to India’s sovereignty, threatening the partnership.

India, in turn, must stay true to its “India First” vision, drawing on its strategic edge to shape its global role. While the Indian government has stated that the recent India-Pakistan ceasefire came at Pakistan’s request, it should go further, openly and confidently countering President Trump’s false claim of securing it through trade. India must not hold back out of fear that trade deals might falter; clarity and strength are essential to protect national interests and set the record straight.