The primary objective of this relation is to build India as a counterweight to China and the secondary objective is to create a sidekick in a region where the U.S. has vested interests. India has utilized the situation to get certain long term transactional benefits but is uncertain of its role in the region under the supervision of Uncle Sam. Instead now it wants to aggressively force hegemonic policies on neighboring countries.
In Past, Pakistan was the primary option for the U.S. to attain strategic interests. The major reason was the support that Pakistan can offer to the U.S. and India cannot – for instance, Pakistan can provide its territory as a platform for the U.S. to operationalize. Time has changed, since a significant departure of Indian policy of not entering into a military agreement with any major power. Now it has signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) with United States which will allow their militaries to work closely and use each other’s bases for repair and replenishment of supplies.
Customary India always had an important place in the U.S. strategic thinking that is why New Delhi has been identified as the largest recipient of U.S economic assistance over a 66-year period. The Pentagon publicized that it has established an India Rapid Reaction Cell (IRRC), the U.S. has never entertained any country with such kind of importance by pledging a whole platform to one country. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Harry B. Harris, declared that, “India presents a wonderful opportunity for us.”
Since 1950s Pakistan has cardinal relations with the U.S. and voluntarily always offered its services when asked by the United States, but relations between these two countries remain stringent. India’s BJP government led by the hardcore Hindu Narendra Modi is trying to take these stringent relations to whole new level. Currently all these platforms are being used to unnecessarily malign Pakistan, for instance, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism Ted Poe and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher moved a bill in Congress seeking to designate Pakistan as a 'state sponsor of terrorism'.
India is swiftly intensifying its diplomatic efforts to cash this progressive strategic partnership with the U.S. and by these efforts New Delhi is bullying and threatening Pakistan. When officially nominated as the PM, Modi has carried out full scale propaganda war against Pakistan and repeatedly rejected option of dialogues. Meanwhile, in the backdrop of Uri attacks India has amenably displayed its hostility, even lately putting a review on Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan.
Now when the U.S. is going to conclude its military campaign in Afghanistan it should count on Pakistan. Contrarily, it is playing an Indian card which is challenging Pakistan’s strategic and security interests in the region. Similarly the U.S. is unnecessarily favoring India hoping that India when needed will counter China. Which is less likely to happen and will only add to the security challenges. India has no power or strategy to fight against China or in case if needed to fight to against Russia the oldest rival of United States.
There are particular established limitations on relations between the United States and India. One is divergent views on the issue of nonproliferation especially NPT. Secondly, the U.S. commercial interests in India are not still at a potential where foundation of an ideal partnership could be laid down. Meanwhile, foreign direct investment of the U.S. in India comes at a very slow pace. The most important consideration neglected by these two countries is to find a way to talk about the role of China in the region.
However nowadays, India is using Senate India Caucus as a cover to influence the several U.S. congressmen such as Ed Royce and Ted Poe. India used the similar kind of platform the U.S. India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) to finalize civil nuclear deal. Currently Republican congressmen are pursuing well-funded agenda in mainstreaming nuclear India for instance granting a membership of NSG.
This policy position of the U.S. is contradictory to its foreign policy has been in the past, which the 39th President of Jimmy Carter adeptly articulated in 2006 that “Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders’ nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT.”