thumbs_b_c_98db087203b420bee7fe87244f4fdaa9

The strategic partnership between India and the United States has deepened over the years and both are now major defence partners. India is also part of the Quad along with the US, Australia and Japan which is ostensibly posed to counter a rising China. New Delhi is also engaged in direct defence trade with Washington to enhance its military capabilities against Beijing. The US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper has gone so far as to declare that the US stands shoulder-to-shoulder with India to face China’s ‘aggression and destabilizing activities’ in the region. However, a number of recent developments have called into question India’s role in this partnership to contain Beijing’s rise.

First, India’s recent deployment of the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system S-400 purchased from Russia has touched a nerve in the White House. The transfer of the S-400 came on the heels of the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India in late 2021. The subsequent deployment of the system received huge traction due to the US reaction. Earlier, Washington had sanctioned its NATO ally Turkey for purchasing the same system from Russia under its ‘Countering American Adversaries through Sanctions Act’ (CAATSA). Reportedly, the US also cautioned India against going ahead with finalizing the deal, warning that a second CAATSA waiver was unlikely. But, by introducing the Circumspectly Reducing Unintended Consequences Impairing Alliances and Leadership (CRUCIAL) Act, 2021, US representatives tried to salvage India from impending sanctions. The Act seeks to exempt Quad members from sanctions under CAATSA. Notably, many in India also hoped that the US would let the issue slide, claiming that the said system would ultimately be deployed to fortify New Delhi’s defence against China. However, this claim was debunked with reports that India deployed the S-400’s first battery in the Punjab along its border with Pakistan. This leaves India’s aerial defence against China unchanged.

The deployment of the S-400 is also irksome for the US because, although the Indian military arsenal is growing, this increase is primarily coming from countries other than the United States. As the S-400 originates from Russia, it helps the country project its defence prowess which is definitely not something Americans would applaud. The system can also lead to interoperability issues with the US platforms in India’s inventory. Additionally, deployment of such systems can also cause security issues between American and Indian forces.

Similarly, questions are being raised about India’s intentions to pursue US interests in case the Sino-US trade war heats up again. In such a scenario, the US will naturally expect India to side with it, owing to their major defence agreements. The irony is that despite these military agreements worth billions of dollars, Indian military capabilities and economy lag behind China. And while India continues to beat the drums of a ‘two-front’ war scenario with Pakistan and China, this rhetoric is also believed to be a trope aimed at receiving compensation from the US as going to war against China is suicidal for New Delhi. The Indian government seems aware of this situation as it has chosen to stay quiet in the face of recent Chinese advancements in disputed territories. In fact, even the opposition leaders have claimed that the BJP Government has chosen to remain silent in response to Beijing’s increasing consolidation of its claims. This docile attitude was also visible from the overtures made by the Indian side to calm down the situation on the border, despite Chinese moves. Reportedly, India made several proposals to China to enter into talks to disengage from all ‘friction points’ at the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

India’s capacity and capability to face China militarily came into question in June 2020 when over 20 Indian soldiers were killed in a scuffle with Chinese soldiers. Experts believe that within just one year of that clash at Galwan Valley, New Delhi threw in the towel on at least three occasions. Indian military preparedness remains primarily focused on Pakistan, as is also asserted by its military leadership.

Moreover, although New Delhi has sought to modernise its military, experts believe the country is investing in outdated war domains while China is investing in cutting edge war technologies of the future. China has a sophisticated military arsenal consisting of cyber, Artificial Intelligence, electronic and electromagnetic capabilities while India plans to resort to old, traditional ways of war fighting which will put it at odds with the People’s Liberation Army.

Given the above scenario, the situation is clear – India will always further its own interests even at the cost of US interests. It will not pick a fight with Beijing just to appease the White House as no nation would willingly go into an all-out war against a military and economic giant like China. Besides, despite importing sophisticated military technologies, India’s military is not capable of taking China head on. The US should face the reality that seeking to contain China’s influence by relying on India, a country which has neither the intent nor is equipped to perform this task, will definitely not yield desired results. While India continues to garner military dividends, stirring up a two-front war narrative to skim material gains from the US and evade its sanctions, China’s rise continues unabated, and the US policy to rely on India is clearly flawed.

Khansa Qureshi is a researcher at Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in Strafasia. She can be reached at [email protected]

Image Source: Korkmaz, Huseyin. 2020, “China-India border clashes and US strategy in Indo-Pacific,” Anadolu Agency, June 26, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/analysis-china-india-border-clashes-and-us-strategy-in-indo-pacific/1891028


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »