The Shaky US-India Defence Deal

Who would have thought that a few months after the USA’s economic blows, India would be shaking hands with it over a decade-long defense pact? Washington, once accusing New Delhi of fuelling Moscow’s war machine by buying cheap Russian oil, is now hailing it as a key strategic partner. The speed of this transformation is less diplomacy and more design. What’s being celebrated as cooperation feels more like containment. The USA has not built a bridge; it’s tightened the leash. By turning economic pressure into strategic persuasion, Washington has managed to pull India into its sphere of influence, not through trust, but through tactics.

Ultimately, the pact is not about shared security but about two powers pursuing their own agendas, leaving South Asia to bear the consequences. And if history is any guide, when both partners lack credibility, the agreement itself is the first thing to be questioned

This carefully orchestrated shift was made official on October 31in Kuala Lumpur during the 12^th ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting. India was represented by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, who hailed the 10-year pact as a major step forward in technology, intelligence, and security cooperation. The USA, through Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, described the agreement as a cornerstone for regional stability and deterrence, signalling growing strategic alignment between the two nations.

Yet the broader picture tells a different story. Just months earlier, Washington had hit India with punishing tariffs on its exports, along with a 25 percent penalty on the purchase of Russian oil and arms. What is presented as a partnership of equals is, in reality, a deal forged under pressure, one that draws India closer to the US orbit while subtly limiting its freedom to act independently, raising questions about who truly gains from this “milestone” in bilateral relations.

The deal may appear to be mutually beneficial, but its true focus is on Washington’s interests. Not long ago, both countries stood on opposite sides of a trade war, with Washington using tariffs and trade threats as leverage to bend New Delhi’s choices. A closer inspection reveals that the USA was not particularly concerned about India purchasing from Russia; what truly bothered them was that India was not buying from the USA. Under pressure from tariffs and trade threats, India unexpectedly signed a decade-long defence agreement, cloaked in words of “cooperation” and “strategic partnership.”

In reality, the deal is less about trust and more about guiding India toward US weapons and technology, turning economic pressure into diplomatic praise. For India, this partnership may provide access to advanced technology and opportunities for joint exercises. Still, it also means aligning more of its strategic choices with Washington’s priorities, thereby tightening the USA’s influence over India’s strategic options.

This is where the broader strategic picture comes into focus. The USA views China as a threat to its global influence, and a stronger, aligned India helps Washington maintain control over the Indo-Pacific region. By aligning New Delhi more closely with US defence and technology priorities, Washington gains a formidable partner to counter Beijing’s growing influence in the region. The deal exemplifies US tactics, pressuring partners when needed and revising agreements to serve its own interests, a pattern that has made trusting the USA quite risky, given its long history of unreliability, as evident from recent events like the Doha attack.

For India, the deal might offer a boost in arms production and access to advanced technology, but it largely functions as a strategic leash in disguise. The benefits are carefully weighed to serve Washington, turning New Delhi into a convenient tool for the USA’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. Instead of charting its own course, New Delhi risks becoming a supplier and enforcer for someone else’s agenda.

The deal raises serious doubts not only about Washington’s intentions but also about New Delhi’s credibility as a regional player. The USA has a long history of making strategic promises that change whenever political priorities shift. South Asia has seen this before: in 1971, Washington assured that the Seventh Fleet’s Task Force 74 would support Pakistan, a fleet that never arrived. Perhaps it sank somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle, along with many of Washington’s forgotten promises.

But India’s reliability is not much better. Its defence and foreign policy often shift suddenly, and its record shows a pattern of backing away from commitments whenever domestic politics or strategic interests change. A clear example is New Delhi’s quick withdrawal from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) after negotiating with 15 countries, leaving partners unsure of India’s consistency and long-term seriousness. This tendency to pull out at the last minute makes India a hard country to trust in major agreements. When both sides have such histories, it is hard to believe this defence pact is based on trust, stability, or long-term responsibility.

This mutual unreliability directly affects South Asia’s strategic landscape. For India, heavy reliance on the USA may weaken the strategic autonomy it has long claimed to protect, while trying to bolster its defence sector with a partner known for changing course when it benefits its interests. For Pakistan, the deal introduces new security concerns as India acquires more advanced capabilities, increasing pressure on Islamabad to adjust its own defence posture despite its tight financial situation. At the regional level, the agreement causes more harm than good.

With Washington’s support, New Delhi may start acting more boldly and aggressively in South Asia, which only adds to the tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Considering that India’s military chief has described Operation Sindoor as just a “trailer,” a trailer which almost triggered a nuclear war, it raises a serious question: if Washington continues to empower India, can the world remain safe from such an increasingly aggressive state? Instead of fostering peace, this shift can make the region more unpredictable and increase the risk of a serious mistake from either side.
Simultaneously, the deal grants India even more strategic space to act on its own terms, meaning that once its military strength grows, it may no longer be as dependent on Washington as the USA expects. In trying to cultivate a loyal partner, the USA may instead be creating a monster in South Asia, more powerful, independent, and potentially hostile to its own creator. Ultimately, the pact is not about shared security but about two powers pursuing their own agendas, leaving South Asia to bear the consequences. And if history is any guide, when both partners lack credibility, the agreement itself is the first thing to be questioned.