Clearing the fog on the state of India-US relations

Hindustan Times

9 hours ago

'The administration is bullish on India' is how a senior US official put it to me last week in Washington D.C. This sentiment would seem at odds with the broader reporting on the US-India relationship. In a Financial Times newsletter on India, one writer argued that the Indian Prime Minister (PM) 'made the mistake of counting on his warm personal connection with Trump'. The general assertion being that the Indian government has mortgaged this crucial relationship to 'personal friendships' alone. Others suggest that the US President's recent luncheon with Asim Munir, the recently decorated Pakistani Field Marshal, and his 'sneaky attempt' to bring PM Narendra Modi and Munir into the same room in the White House is 'threatening the future of US-India partnership'. Structures like TRUST were created for top political leaders to monitor progress on crucial initiatives. (REUTERS)
Between social media and popular reporting, it would seem as though this relationship has been iced. Yet, in meetings with over 30 officials, experts, think tankers, and industry representatives last week, the story that emerged was diametrically opposed to the one that has been paraphrased above.
Modi's engagements with Trump matter more than it is perhaps realised. It clearly provides a political basis of what can be achieved between the two countries, even at this time of shrinking administrative capacities in the US, and the many unplanned shifts in the bureaucratic body politic.
To be sure, you could start the week with a meeting with official X and end up receiving a phone call from his/her successor the next day. Yet, what was clear to me was that the vision laid out by the two leaders in a lengthy joint statement following PM Modi's meeting with President Trump in February, guides the different contours of the relationship at the functional level. Notwithstanding the game of political catch between outlandish tweets and measured official responses, the guidelines for those moving the relationship across government and the private sector are more or less clear.
First, there is a concerted effort to realise outcomes in the strategic technology partnership between the two sides. Under the banner of TRUST (Transforming the Relationship Utilising Strategic Technology), the administrative State and technology companies between the two countries are working towards outcomes to do more on pharmaceuticals with the view to de-risk the production of key ingredients from China; fuse infrastructure partnerships between firms invested in the present and the future of Artificial Intelligence (AI); and actively looking for ways to cooperate on extracting and processing critical minerals. The latter needs work, but the zest to find the right compact is real.
Second, American private sector actors are preparing the ground to sell different kinds of reactors to meet India's nuclear energy needs. They are, at this time, hoping that the proposed legislative changes to the Indian Civil Nuclear Liability Act 2010 streamline liability clauses in consonance with global standards — delinking liabilities on suppliers and operators.
Further, they remain hopeful that changes to India's Atomic Energy Act would allow private sector participation to meet India's nuclear energy needs.
This is a top priority for the White House and the US President. This was made clear in several exchanges. This is 'unfinished business' following the conclusion of the 2008 US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, as one Washington insider put it. My own sense is that progress on this front is almost as important as the conclusion of the first tranche of the trade deal between the two countries. The first tranche of this deal needs to be completed by July 9, when the US President's 90-day pause on 'reciprocal tariffs' ends. Officials suggested that there is a fair chance that the first tranche of the deal with India will be completed by this deadline. 'The trickier parts will come later,' they made plain.
Third, efforts across bureaucracies in Washington D.C. that deal with India are almost uniformly focussed on the Quad Leader's Summit in October or November, which provides an opportunity for another bilateral between the two leaders. 'Deliverables' is the name of the game. Yet, at least some of the deliverables need to be real. The ongoing process is less about padding a joint statement and more about searching for right-sized deals. There is a fire in the system to make something happen by the time the leaders meet, including a considerable push to realise new AI infrastructure partnerships. 'India and Brazil are the two most important countries for the US when it comes to data centres,' as one technocrat stated. 'We need to get this right on both sides', the official made plain.
In the US, this would mean producing revised rules for export controls that make it easier to access chips from the US into India. In turn, India will possibly need to negotiate certain guarantees to make sure that the chips are not off-shored. Moreover, there is a significant push to deregulate the data centre market in India, and streamline processes to encourage the expansion of AI infrastructure in India. None of this will be easy. Deregulation takes time. Negotiating guarantees can be cumbersome and is a process that cuts across several administrative buildings in and across New Delhi and other Indian states.
If Indian officials conclude that data centre investments are an advantage for India, this is the bureaucratic work that will be required to realise this unique moment. It is exactly why structures like TRUST were created, for top political leaders to monitor progress on crucial initiatives.
The enthusiasm for investments and partnerships will not last long. This also might be kept in mind. This is a zero-sum play.
In sum, while there is little doubt that Munir, Pakistan, Twitter exchanges, and the politics that shape these expressions and incidents to an extent inform the current state of US-India ties, at times exercising officials on both sides, it is also plainly clear that the functional relationship — which produces material results — is one that is working to produce outcomes, and not without the direction of the political leadership.
Rudra Chaudhuri is director, Carnegie India. The views expressed are personal.