Does the USA treat India as a strategic pawn?

BAPPY RAHMAN

During the Fifth Annual India-US 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in New Delhi on November 10, India’s Foreign Secretary, Vinay Kwatra, emphasized that Bangladesh’s politics and elections are internal matters, and India does not see any external intervention as justified for regional stability. India and Bangladesh share strong bonds of history, language, and culture. In the past, certain Indian separatist factions exploited Bangladesh for their own purposes.

However, recent initiatives by the current regime have significantly improved the political situation. Similarly, various terrorist, militant, and fundamentalist groups operating in Bangladesh have posed a threat to India’s security by crossing the border. Fortunately, the government of Bangladesh has taken substantial measures to address these concerns, leading to a notable reduction in security threats for both nations.

In contrast, evidence of the United States meddling in Bangladesh’s internal politics exists. The meetings between the US Ambassador to Dhaka, Peter Haas, and various political parties and individuals across different social strata strongly suggest active interference by Washington in Bangladesh’s political and electoral affairs. Haas’ actions indicate a potential disregard for the principles outlined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomats. Thus, based on the statements made by the Indian foreign secretary, it can be practically concluded that the ministerial dialogue did not effectively address or reconcile the divergent positions held by the United States and India concerning Bangladesh’s forthcoming election.

Top of Form

India and the United States have deep-rooted and seemingly irreconcilable differences on numerous fronts, ranging from fundamental ideological disparities to stark contrasts in religious beliefs. These fundamental divergences cast a shadow over any prospect of a meaningful partnership, suggesting that these inherent discordances may prove impossible, hindering the potential for constructive collaboration between the two nations. Now the question arises: does the provided situation suggest that the United States sees India more as a pawn than an ally, with the primary intention of utilizing India to advance its Asia Pacific strategy?

In this context, we can explore several arguments often presented to justify the claim that the US treats India as a pawn rather than a true ally. One argument centers around economic exploitation. Critics suggest that the US sees India primarily as a market for its goods and services, leveraging India’s large consumer base and skilled workforce to advance its economic interests. They argue that the emphasis on economic ties overshadows the broader principles of a mutually beneficial alliance and reinforces the perception of India as a pawn in the US economic strategy. Another justification for the pawn analogy revolves around geopolitical considerations. Some argue that the US seeks to encircle China in the Asia-Pacific region strategically and, in doing so, instrumentalizes India as a key player in this containment strategy. According to this view, the US support for India’s military capabilities and regional influence is geared more toward its own geopolitical objectives rather than fostering a genuine alliance.

Critics point to the selective nature of US-India collaboration in the defense sector. While significant military cooperation exists, including joint exercises and technology transfers, skeptics argue that the US tends to engage with India more when it aligns with its strategic interests, particularly in countering China. This selective collaboration reinforces the perception that India is being used strategically rather than treated as an equal ally. The claim that the US treats India as a pawn is also tied to its behavior in international forums. Critics argue that the US support for India is often conditional, fluctuating based on its evolving priorities. This approach, they contend, undermines the essence of a true alliance built on trust and shared values, as India’s interests may be sacrificed when they conflict with US objectives.

The level of technology transfer in defense and other critical sectors has been cited as evidence of the pawn dynamic. Some argue that the US is cautious about transferring cutting-edge technologies to India, maintaining a level of control and preventing India from becoming a potential competitor. Critics see this cautious approach as indicative of strategic exploitation rather than a genuine alliance. Critics of the U.S.-India relationship also highlight instances where the US has made decisions unilaterally, such as sanctions or trade policies, without sufficient consultation with India. This unilateral decision-making, they argue, underscores a power dynamic where India’s interests may be subordinated to US priorities, reinforcing the perception of India as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

Top of Form

Critics argue that the United States views India merely as a tool in its strategy to rebalance power in the Asia-Pacific region, using India as a means to garner international support and counterbalance emerging powers like China. While the two nations are drawing closer, there are concerns that the relationship may not be as positive as it seems, with both countries capitalizing on each other for their own gains.The US, it is argued, has never treated India as an equal ally but values its partnership due to the current global strategic landscape. Positioning India as a partner is seen as a way to bolster US influence in international affairs and the global economy, especially amid rising tensions with Russia and China. The suggestion is that India is seen as a valuable asset in the US’s ‘rebalancing’ strategy in the Asia-Pacific, treating it as a pawn in the process. India’s rapid economic growth is seen as an opportunity for stronger commercial ties with the US. At the same time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make in India’ campaign presents lucrative investment opportunities for Washington. However, critics argue that this relationship is not purely symbiotic; the US benefits from India’s economic growth while India gains support in international forums and assistance in becoming a major global power, such as securing a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Despite the apparent closeness, skepticism arises due to India’s historically non-aligned diplomatic stance. Critics argue that cooperation between the two nations should be seen as a pursuit of mutual benefit, as India remains committed to its non-alignment policy. Disparities emerge in their agendas, particularly regarding climate change, where the US seeks global emission targets, and India, facing the repercussions of historical industrialization, prioritizes cheaper energy for its large population.

The longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan also challenge the US-India relationship. Despite strengthening ties, the US continues to view Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror, potentially straining relations with India, which has a contentious history with its neighbor. Divergences in global trade talks and establishing a new global economic order further contribute to a sense of skepticism, indicating that the relationship lacks a solid foundation and may face periodic challenges.

Bappy Rahman is a development practitioner