Converging Paths: Exploring the United States-India’s Strategic Partnership in the Post-9/11 Era and its Potential Implications for South Asia

? South Asia is composed of eight countries: Afghanistan,?Bangladesh,?Bhutan,?India,?Maldives,?Nepal,?Pakistan, and?Sri Lanka. Due to its geo-strategic, geo-economic and geo-political location it is always remained the center of the focus of the extra-regional big power. The US is not the first country to take interests in the region, before it many foreign powers had showed interests as well. Central Asians, Persians, Arabs, Britishers and even Greeks, showed interests and many of them occupied the region from time to time. Around 1500 BC2, Aryans from Central Asia arrived into Afghanistan via the Khyber Pass and began subjugating the indigenous population. The Persians conquered northwest India in 483 BC. Alexander the Great of Greece overthrew the Persian Empire and entered northern India. The Greeks left after his death in 317 BC and had little impact on Indian civilization. [1] It illustrates that foreign governments have been interested in the Indian subcontinent since ancient times, not just after 9/11. Despite different incentives, the pattern maintained. In the archaic period, outsiders colonized and oppressed indigenous peoples. Muslims in the Middle Ages and Europeans in the early modern period populated the country before Britain seized it. Muslim conquest or invasion had several causes, but spreading Islam was the main goal. A power vacuum that attracted Europeans accelerated the decline of the Mughal Empire. Portuguese settlers in Goa were the first Europeans to arrive in India by water in 1498. British and Dutch influence increased in the seventeenth century as Portuguese hegemony declined. Europeans flocked to India for business prospects.[2] British interest in India stemmed from two factors: raw materials and consumers. They ruled the subcontinent for about 200 years, utilizing the subcontinent's riches to build other colonies and promote domestic prosperity until 1947, when India attained freedom.

??????????? The United States’ (US) interest in the region is not based on the same historical relationship with India that other powers had before to independence. For US interests, the division of the subcontinent and India's political independence were watershed moments. The United States' interest in the region was deemed peripheral since it did not rely on South Asian resources; rather, it was motivated by a desire to limit international communism and rein in Soviet expansionism in the region.[3]? The subcontinent was originally considered one geopolitical entity. The subcontinent was a key battleground for the US, USSR, and China throughout World War II and the Cold War. Washington prioritized Northeast Asia. Despite its fears of Soviet communism, the US did not oppose the Soviet Union's footing in India in South Asia, showing its disinterest in the region. Instead, the US has focused on the Indian Ocean and Pakistan's sovereignty. South Asia became increasingly important to the US and other industrialized democracies after the Cold War. India's rejection to accept Cold War-era divisions created an alternative geopolitical code that grew into the Non-Aligned Movement. Indeed, India's then-Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, wanted to portray the Third Foreign outside as a place where people could make their own decisions without outside influence.[4] Nehru's non-alignment strategy, in collaboration with other nations, sought to disassociate newly independent countries from their colonial legacy. It appeared to be a broad objective, albeit it was unlikely to be accomplished given the global framework.

??????????? During the Cold War, India under Nehru strove to define its own position, which led to the Monroe Doctrine-like Nehru Doctrine. The Nehru Doctrine reflects India's dominance and, more importantly, its regional outlook. Pakistan needed to be forceful to deal with its surrounds existentialistically. It should be aligned with US-led military partnerships beyond NATO. The US' foreign policy toward South Asia, India, and Pakistan has fluctuated since independence. Taking a middle ground is bad for the US. Washington regularly exploits the split between New Delhi and Islamabad for its own short-term gain.[5] As mentioned, the end of the Cold War helped regional understanding, regionalism, and free market economics emerge. The Cold War ended ideological conflicts and began bilateral and economic partnership for the Clinton administration. Thus, the Clinton Administration believed India had economic potential to be utilized. The Bush administration strengthened Clinton's economic and strategic relations. Both presidents gave India tremendous military aid, worsening South Asian security.

??????????? South Asia is close to Afghanistan, Iran, China, the Gulf states, and Central Asia, which attract the US and other regional countries, making it a powerful economic, political, and military force. Before the late 20th century, the US saw the region as backward, but this impression has faded. This timeline of India demonstrates how conquest and imperial enslavement have changed it. This tradition was revitalized after the Cold War, when all major countries, especially the US, showed renewed interest in India's growth.[6] India's growing capacity in several fields shows that it is shifting from a passive beneficiary of external influence to an active operator in its region, helping to build a new international order. India's economic, political, and cultural dependence on others is gone. Due to skilled strategic leaders who have mastered resource use, India has begun to overcome its disadvantages.

??????????? American strategic interests in India have grown as India's economy liberalizes, and both countries want to do more with India since the Cold War. The US had to adapt to a changing world, and India has become more dependent on it for prosperity. Throughout subcontinental history, a new reliance pattern has emerged. Despite Pakistan and Afghanistan's role in the War on Terror, this study will also investigate India, the region's major power and a longtime US ally. As the world's largest democracy and a multi-sector expert, India may show its imperial strength. The study will also examine how these two countries deal with their historical differences, in which India no longer submits to colonial control while the US rules the world. The Cold War well-describes American international policy. America has been important in world affairs since 1945. Its policies have affected tens of millions of people thousands of kilometers distant. Israel, the Middle East, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are examples. There have been 180 US military interventions worldwide in the past century. [7]

??????????? The US's foreign policy shift from isolationism to full participation and from no alliances to diversified alignments showed how its national interests have shifted with its power post-World War II. Industry, agriculture, finance, trade, GDP, GNP, per capita income, education, scientific discoveries, technological inventions, the techno-science workforce, defense, and nuclear capabilities are all dominated by the US. Ideas, images, and artifacts from the US have affected cultural movements abroad. With its vast military, diplomatic, cultural, and military assets, the US dominated the world after World War II, generating awe, horror, respect, and allegiance. The regional international political landscape has led some to view America as a global policeman, monopolizing foreign policy decisions to maintain peace and security. Three key events in the late 1990s elevated the region to US prominence. These included India's 1998 nuclear test with Pakistan, the 1999 Kargil War, and Clinton's March 2000 South Asian tour. South Asia's regional aspirations also become increasingly aligned with the US's. Political Islam, especially Islamic terrorism, boosted South Asia's strategic importance around the start of the 20th century. 9/11, like Pearl Harbor, threatened US security, forcing it to reassess its role in South Asian politics.[8] The new century is thought to have begun on September 11, 2001, rather than January 1, 2000, due to the incident and a major upheaval in world politics. Following these strikes, the US joined New Delhi and Islamabad in the "war on terrorism" as a shared cause. With the goal of forging a more balanced regional relationship, partnering with Pakistan, and strategically engaging India, President Bush quickly relaxed sanctions and provided assistance to both. While the US War on Terror did not impede the steady growth of US-Indian ties, it did change the US and India's short-term aims.

??????????? Due to the 9/11 attacks, South Asia became a priority security concern for the United States, as it was the first region to jeopardize the security of its inhabitants' homeland. According to Richard Boucher, "September 11th solidified our understanding that stability in South and Central Asia was always vital,"[9] He claims that the United States' triumph in the region was crucial to the country's national interests. As a result, the US became more interested in bolstering its ties with India's political base, allowing India to play a larger role in not only preserving but also influencing US-India relations. As the US's commitment to maintain regional peace grew, India's utility as a bulwark against another source of instability, namely China's rise, grew.

??????????? In conjunction with the US, the Bush administration envisioned a strong, stable, and conflict-free India as a counter-strategic partner to curb China's regional dominance. This pattern was perpetuated by the Obama administration, which highlighted India even more and, in the opinion of some, marginalized Pakistan, in contrast to Bush's efforts to equalize the two. In general, any US policy aimed at reducing future barriers to American influence in Asia, whether they are connected to terrorism, commerce, nuclear proliferation, or the altering global balance of power, must include a critical strategic Indo-US relationship. Strong strategic relationships can also help the US expand its economy and collaborate on challenges like energy security and climate change.[10] Both countries are multi-ethnic and multi-religious democracies that lay the groundwork for joint interests on global challenges. Increased economic growth in India will result in the country's ascension to global prominence and increased prominence within the country.

??????????? In the meantime, Keeping South Asia peaceful and stable is a reason for the US to ensure that India is perceived as a partner rather than a rival. The prevalent post-9/11 perspective on the US-India relationship asserts that the two nations' current level of amicable relations is the result of the 9/11 attacks on US soil.[11] The US-India relationship was given its connective tissue because India's rise and goals have consequences for its potential role as a counterweight to China. As President George W. Bush Said:

“We have an ambitious agenda with India. Our agenda is practical. It builds on a relationship that has never been better. India is a global leader, as well as good friend… my trip will remind everybody about the strengthening of an important strategic partnership. We will work together in practical ways to promote a hopeful future for citizens in both our nations.”[12]

[1] Joshua J. Mark, India, Ancient History Encyclopedia, available at https://www.ancient.eu/india/ accessed on 6 August 2021.

[2] Tim Lambert, A Brief History of India, available at https://www.localhistories.org/india.html.

?

[3]? Metcalf D. Barbara, and Thomas R. Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, London: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 14.

[4] A. Z. Hilali, ‘Cold War Politics of Superpowers in South Asia’, The Dialogue, Pakistan Vol.1, No. 2, 2006, p.71

?

?

[5] Shireen M. Mazari, “The India-US Strategic Partnership” Strategic Studies, Volume.22, issue.3, Autumn 2002, p.10.?

[6] Dana Robert Dillon, Testimony before the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, hearing on ‘The United States and South Asia: An Assessment of Appropriate US Strategic Objectives in South Asia, Heritage Foundation, 2005, p. 7.

?

?

[7] Stephen Burman, The State of the American Empire: How the USA Shapes the World, London: Earthscan, 2007, p.10.

?

?

[8] Zhang Guihong, US Security Policy towards South Asia after September 11 and its implications for China: A Chinese Perspective, London: Routledge, p. 154.

?

[9] Ambassador Richard A. Boucher, “Pursuing Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity in South and Central Asia” The DISAM Journal, 2006, p. 55.

?

?

[10] Bouton, Marshall M., ‘America’s Interests in India’, US-India Initiative Series, Centre for a New

American Security, October 2010, p.9.

[11] Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World and the Rise of the Rest, Penguin Books, 2009, pp. 1-3.

[12] “The Speech of President George W. Bush before embarking on his visit to India in February 2006,” available athttps://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/fs/2006/62422.html.