India Is Not Dependent on the U.S. to Counter China

 

Strategic Autonomy and the Indo-Pacific

India and the United States have strengthened their strategic relationship in recent years, particularly through platforms like the QUAD. While QUAD is officially a non-military alliance focused on shared values and cooperation in areas like maritime security and supply chain resilience, its regular military exercises signal an underlying intention to build security coordination in the Indo-Pacific. This alignment is largely driven by a shared concern over China’s increasing assertiveness in the region.

However, even as their interests converge, India has made it clear: it will not act as a junior partner to the U.S. in a larger geopolitical confrontation with China. India believes in strategic autonomy—it will partner with like-minded nations but not at the cost of its long-term interests.

---

India’s Two-Front Challenge: China and Pakistan

China poses a strategic challenge to India, not just because of historical border disputes, but due to its broader strategy of encircling India—militarily, diplomatically, and economically. From the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) running through Indian territory in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to expanding influence in Sri Lanka, Maldives, and now Bangladesh, China aims to restrict India’s space in its own neighbourhood.

India is also wary of the U.S. taking an overwhelming military role in South Asia. Replacing one hegemonic power with another does not serve India’s vision of a multipolar Asia. India wants a balance of power—not domination by either China or the United States.

The Indo-Pakistan conflict of 2025 highlights this dilemma. China outwardly extended a hand of peace by resolving some border tensions with India, but simultaneously equipped Pakistan with high-end military technology and encouraged terrorist provocations—clearly hoping to drag India into a full-scale war.

Had India not responded, it would have looked weak and unable to defend its sovereignty. If it had overreacted, it risked being drawn into a prolonged, destabilizing war. India chose a third path—a swift, precise, and well-calibrated military response. This forced Pakistan to seek a ceasefire, exposed the limitations of Chinese-supplied weaponry, and showcased India's growing defence capabilities.

---

U.S. Mixed Signals: A Trust Deficit

During the conflict, India expected at least diplomatic support from the United States, if not more. Instead, at the height of India’s anti-terror operations, the IMF—heavily influenced by Washington—approved a critical loan to Pakistan, a move that undermined Indian efforts and sent the wrong signal.

Furthermore, the U.S. has continued to support Pakistan militarily. In 2022, the Biden administration approved a $450 million package for maintenance of Pakistan’s F-16 fighter jets. In 2025, the Trump administration approved an additional $397 million. These moves reflect America’s desire to keep leverage over Islamabad, but they come at the cost of frustrating India—a democratic partner genuinely committed to regional stability.

This dual policy—expecting India to confront China while continuing to arm and fund Pakistan—is seen in India as hypocritical and short-sighted.

---

Bangladesh: A Missed Opportunity for Collaboration

Bangladesh under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina maintained a stable and friendly relationship with India. India provided military and intelligence support to Bangladesh, and both countries worked together to curb extremism. However, the political shift that brought Muhammad Yunus to power—widely perceived as pro-U.S.—has destabilized this equation.

The U.S. wanted influence over St. Martin’s Island, a strategic location near the Bay of Bengal. While this may have helped contain China, the manner in which it was done—without meaningful consultation with India—allowed China to seize the opportunity and improve relations with the new regime.

As a result, anti-India and anti-Hindu sentiments resurfaced in Bangladesh, aided by extremist elements with links to Pakistan. Had the U.S. taken India into confidence and coordinated this strategic foothold, the same objective could have been achieved without destabilizing a close Indian ally. India was never against the U.S. having strategic depth in the region—but it values mutual respect and collaboration.

---

Stability over Hegemony: India's Vision for the Subcontinent

Unlike both China and the United States, India does not believe in creating instability abroad to protect itself at home. India’s foreign policy is rooted in the idea of peaceful development and regional harmony. It has never taken actions that directly threaten U.S. interests and, in fact, has stood as a reliable partner in global forums and multilateral platforms.

Ironically, U.S. policies in South Asia often end up strengthening China’s position, not weakening it. By failing to stand firmly with India during critical moments, and by continuing to hedge its bets with Pakistan, the U.S. unintentionally enables China’s goal of keeping the region fractured and unstable.

America also seems to believe that Pakistan will support it in the event of a U.S.-China confrontation over Taiwan. That’s highly unlikely. Pakistan has never prioritized ideological alignment over strategic benefit, and its alignment with China is far deeper than Washington acknowledges. The only hope for a future where Pakistan supports regional peace is if India-Pakistan relations normalize and proxy wars end—a vision India supports, but China and, inadvertently, the U.S. keep obstructing.

---

India’s Defense Policy: Self-Reliance with Partnership

India is open to defense partnerships, including with the United States. However, it does not wish to sacrifice national development for military purchases. India has long desired technology transfer agreements that would allow it to build and innovate domestically, rather than remain a buyer of expensive foreign arms.

For instance, India requested jet engine to develop its indigenous fighter aircraft. The U.S. declined to supply it. As a result, India turned to Russia and then developed its own fighter jet engine—a technological leap that could have been a joint success story with the U.S. India has also now developed fighter jet as well as dry engines for stealth drones and several other high-tech platforms, proving its capability.

The problem is not a lack of cooperation from India. It is the perception in Washington that India is merely a market, not a partner. This outdated thinking needs to change.

---

India and the U.S.: Natural Allies, But On Equal Terms

The U.S. is a global superpower. India respects that. But India is not in competition for that status. India’s aim is to become a strong, self-reliant nation that plays a stabilizing role in Asia. The U.S. should recognize that India is not a transactional ally—it is a long-term strategic partner.

India is the only power in Asia that can counterbalance China militarily, economically, and diplomatically. And unlike China, India is a democracy, governed by rule of law, respecting freedoms, and believing in multilateralism.

Both the U.S. and India are the largest and most powerful democracies in the world. This makes them natural allies. But for this partnership to flourish, there must be mutual trust, respect, and equality—not expectations of subservience or opportunism.

Search- Geopolitics, geopolitics, global conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, spirituality, spiritual reading

spiritual retreats