India-U.S. Relations: Between Courteous Acquaintance and Civilizational Dissonance

In the realm of international diplomacy, India and the United States are often described as natural partners. Yet, beneath the photo-ops and defense agreements lies a complex reality: this is not a relationship of equals in cultural perception or mutual understanding. Rather, it is a courteous acquaintance often marred by deep civilizational dissonance and misaligned expectations.

The Illusion of Natural Alliance

In Washington’s strategic calculus, India is often viewed through the lens of utility: a counterweight to China, a lucrative defense market, and a potential ideological ally. From this vantage, the U.S. finds it frustrating when New Delhi does not toe the line—be it on Russia, Iran, or global trade rules. But India does not see itself as a junior partner in any Western coalition. It sees itself as a civilizational state—an ancient, enduring entity with its own norms, systems, and path to modernity.

Civilizational Memory vs. Modern Superpower

India’s worldview is shaped not merely by the last 75 years of independence, but by thousands of years of philosophical, cultural, and social evolution. Baked into Indian Statecraft are concepts like dharma, which emphasizes moral duty and balance. There is also pluralism, and relational diplomacy, which emphasizes mutual respect and strategic autonomy. This contrasts sharply with America’s liberal-internationalist worldview, rooted in Enlightenment values such as liberty and free markets. Included is missionary zeal, and a tendency to universalize one’s experience.

This civilizational self-awareness makes India uniquely resistant to pressure. When the U.S. imposes moral lectures or sanctions threats (as with CAATSA over Russian defense deals), India sees not principled diplomacy but a form of modern-day imperial overreach.

The Big Brother Problem

What grates most in New Delhi is the periodic American tendency to act as the elder statesman—or worse, the global policeman. Whether it is U.S. commentary on India’s domestic laws (CAA, Article 370), religious freedom, or press liberties, the reaction in India is often one of sovereign indignation. Indian policymakers, irrespective of party affiliation, bristle at what they see as selective scrutiny and moral exceptionalism.

To many Indian observers, America’s credibility on these issues is undermined by its historical support for authoritarian regimes, drone warfare, and its transactional dealings with Pakistan—even in the aftermath of terrorism against India, such as the in the Kargil War and 2008 Mumbai attacks.

The Diaspora Disconnect

It is often assumed that the four-million-strong Indian American community serves as a bridge between the two nations. In reality, this community is increasingly bifurcated. While many have risen to positions of influence, a significant segment of Indian society views elite Indian Americans as more aligned with Western liberalism than with Indian national interests. This cultural distance limits the diaspora’s effectiveness as a trust-building force.

Mutual Utility, Not Mutual Trust

The India-U.S. partnership works best when both sides are realistic about its limits. Defense cooperation, trade, and strategic alignment on China are all promising areas. But India does not seek to replace China in a U.S.-led order; it seeks its own multipolar vision of global governance. It wants respect, not patronage.

As External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has often emphasized, India will do what is in India’s interest, and expects partners to understand that as the basis of engagement.

Conclusion: A Relationship of Balance, Not Bonding

India-U.S. ties today are pragmatic, valuable, and occasionally warm—but they are not and may never be intimate. This is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be managed. The United States must learn to engage India as a sovereign civilization with its own logic. And India must remain clear-eyed about the terms of engagement in a world where even friends act in self-interest.

Call it “strategic acquaintance”, not “alliance”. That, too, can be a foundation for peace, prosperity, and mutual respect—if built with open eyes.