US wants to build a new world. India must ask if it is open, fair, peaceful and just

Why in the News

The US Secretary of State chose to visit Jamnagar and Mumbai, India’s largest centres of corporate power, rather than Delhi. The choice signals that Washington now treats India less as a partner in building a world order and more as an amalgam of corporate interests. The pillars of the India-US relationship are also weakening.

What does the itinerary signal about India’s place?

1. What it is: An instrumental relationship runs on deals, not shared political goals, like a firm valuing a client only for its orders. The itinerary ranks corporate capital and deal-making above politics.
2. Corporate homage: The Secretary courts India’s largest economic power centre, valuing the Ambanis’ ability to deliver projects.
3. India’s diminution: India appears neither as a partner in building a world order nor as an actor whose political status has priority.
4. Oligarch preference: Elon Musk called Mukesh Ambani India’s Prime Minister. It shows the American establishment prefers dealing with big corporate houses.
5. The takeaway: A relationship run through corporate deals lowers India’s political and strategic standing in Washington.

What world order is the US building?

1. Oil grab: US policy resembles an early 20th century oil grab, a scramble to control oil abroad. It covers Venezuelan oil and a possible deal with Russia’s President over Russia’s overseas oil assets.
2. Confederacy of oligarchs: The politics behind it treats rival oligarchs, the very rich with outsized political power, as the force running the world.
3. Civilisational claim: The Secretary’s speech in Athens sought to turn civilisational pride into a claim to Western pre-eminence, tied to a forceful, imperial vision.
4. India’s test: The test is whether this vision leaves room for the open, fair, peaceful and just order India should seek. The US is acting as a “rogue power”.
5. Limited upside: Technological cooperation can grow and Indian corporates may invest abroad more. Eg. IBM’s proposed quantum computing investment in Amravati.

Which pillars of the relationship are hollowing out?

1. Bipartisan support: Washington’s bipartisan commitment to India’s rise has waned, and transactional demands are higher. Even after Donald Trump, India may not be a high priority.
2. Democratic left: India has long clashed with the Democratic Party’s rising left on human rights and trade.
3. China bulwark: Casting India as a bulwark against China was always exaggerated and brought India no special dividends. India must manage China, a threat and an opportunity, on its own terms.
4. Pakistan policy: India’s effort to make the US see Pakistan as India does has collapsed. The US will use Pakistan or Bangladesh for its own ends, and India lacks a vision for South Asia.
5. Cultural goodwill: Immigration once linked American and Indian elites. The debate is now tied to Make America Great Again (MAGA) nativism, hostility to immigrants, sharpened by the US Vice-President’s remarks on Indian workers.

Where do Indian and US interests now conflict?

1. Opaque trade deal: India describes the deal as at a “landing point” or “plateaued”. An unfavourable deal invites political anger, and no deal leaves ties strained.
2. Sanctions double standard: The US imposes Russia related sanctions on India and itself buys Russian diesel.
3. Energy and war costs: The US has dictated which energy markets India can access, and its war on Iran has raised India’s cost of development.
4. Faux realism: Indian defenders of the US call hypocrisy normal in world politics. The real issue is genuine conflicts of interest, met with Indian silence.
5. No homage: India should stay open for business without paying homage to a new Pax Americana (a world order dominated and policed by the US).

Challenges

1. Asymmetric dependence: India needs US markets, technology and capital more than the US needs India.
2. Narrow channels: Ties routed through a few business houses shrink the relationship to their interests.
3. Energy exposure: Sanctions and the Iran war expose India’s dependence on imported oil and gas.

Way Forward

1. Firm trade stance: Sign a trade deal only on terms that protect India’s core interests.
2. Diversified partners: Deepen ties with the European Union and Japan to reduce reliance on Washington.
3. Neighbourhood vision: Set out India’s own policy for South Asia so others cannot fill the gap.
4. Open bargaining: Contest sanctions and energy restrictions in talks rather than in silence.

Conclusion

India-US ties have shifted from a shared political project to a transactional bargain that increasingly cuts against India’s interests. Whether India can keep trading with Washington and still refuse to endorse its new order is the test of its strategic autonomy.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] The Chancellor of Germany visited India in January 2026. Which of the following is/are NOT correct in terms of outcomes? 1. MoU between All India Institute of Ayurveda and University of Hamburg 2. MoU on Youth Hockey Development between Hockey India and German Hockey Federation 3. Establishment of a bilateral dialogue mechanism on the Indo-Pacific 4. Opening of an Honorary Consul of Germany in Lucknow (a) 2 and 3 (b) 1 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 (d) 1 only ANSWER: B”