WASHINGTON D.C. — The recent $93 million approval by the U.S. State Department for the sale of Javelin missiles and Excalibur precision projectiles to India, while seemingly a straightforward defense deal, casts a sharp light on the complex, often contradictory, nature of the U.S.-India strategic partnership.
This transaction, heralded by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) as a move to strengthen the strategic relationship, exists in a realm distinct from the messy, public, and often acrimonious trade disputes and geopolitical tensions that define the daily discourse between Washington and New Delhi.
The dichotomy between public posturing and private trading has become the defining characteristic of this critical bilateral relationship. On one hand, President Donald Trump has publicly lambasted India for its continued, deeply discounted purchases of Russian oil, even threatening punitive tariffs and using sharp rhetoric accusing India of indirectly funding the Kremlin’s war machine.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has retorted with arguments of national sovereignty and national interest, pointing out the significant foreign exchange savings from the cheap Russian crude—a necessity for a rapidly developing economy.
This tension recently culminated in a diplomatic rebuke, with New Delhi signaling a shift in its diplomatic alignment towards the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) shortly after a round of particularly pointed American criticism, a clear display of India’s commitment to strategic autonomy.
The Unspoken ‘Do-Not-Harm’ Rule
Yet, beneath the surface of this friction, a surprising undercurrent of political goodwill persists. Despite the fiery condemnations regarding Russia, the Trump administration has consistently demonstrated a “do-not-harm” policy towards Prime Minister Modi personally and the overarching strategic relationship.
Public criticisms are often immediately followed by an affirmation of the enduring partnership, a testament to India’s indispensable role in the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at containing China. The approval of the Javelin and Excalibur sale is the latest, most tangible evidence of this strategic firewall.
The Javelin missile system, a potent anti-tank weapon, and the M982A1 Excalibur projectiles, a GPS-guided artillery round, represent cutting-edge military technology. Their transfer to India is not merely a commercial transaction; it is a profound political signal. It signifies Washington’s continued trust in India as a major defense partner and its commitment to bolstering New Delhi’s defense capabilities against regional threats, particularly along its disputed borders. It allows the U.S. to cement its position as a preferred defense supplier, slowly weaning India off its decades-long dependence on Russian military hardware.
This security cooperation, however, serves as a lubricant for a relationship that is constantly seizing up on the economic front.
The $530 Billion Trade Tangle
The true impasse in the U.S.-India relationship lies not in the distant battlefields of Ukraine or the high politics of arms sales, but in the prosaic, yet politically explosive, area of trade, specifically agricultural market access. The much-anticipated $530 billion bilateral trade deal remains locked in a fierce stalemate.
The U.S. demands increased market access for its agricultural products, with a particular focus on the export of soybeans and corn. This push is driven by strong domestic political interests—President Trump’s core electoral base includes the farmers of the Midwest, who are struggling with a severe surplus of these commodities following a major trade dispute with China.
Opening up India’s massive domestic market for American farm goods is a key political deliverable for the current U.S. administration. China has shifted its import of soybeans, the very livelihood of Wisconsin farmers, to Argentina and Brazil, hitting American farmers in the Midwest below the belt, jeopardizing Trump’s voting blocks as it locks horns over Trumps’ punishing tariffs for Russian Oil Purchase and alleged trade imbalance correction.
Prime Minister Modi, however, faces his own, equally powerful domestic constituency. He is politically bound to protect Indian farmers, a vast and highly influential voting bloc. India maintains high tariffs and strict rules on imported agricultural goods—especially genetically modified crops like U.S. corn and soybeans—to safeguard the livelihoods of its millions of small-scale producers. Conceding to U.S. demands would risk widespread rural unrest and significant political fallout for his government.
Thus, the economic dialogue is an exercise in transactional deadlock. Washington attempts to tie strategic concessions, such as the potential for tariff cuts on Indian exports, to an end to Russian oil purchases and agricultural market liberalization. India resists, viewing its energy policy as a sovereign decision and its farm protectionism as a domestic necessity.
The Sovereignty vs. Strategy Dilemma
The final, critical thread in this tapestry of contradictions is the push by the U.S. for India to purchase more American energy, specifically oil and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), as an alternative to Russian imports. The U.S. argument is twofold: it is a more secure supply chain, and it aligns New Delhi with the West’s geopolitical objectives.
India has begun playing heed to the American demand and is buying in tranches of American energy, especially LNG for which there is a great need, prompting the commerce ministry to say that positive trends are emerging to end the deadlock over the $530 bn trade deal with the US.
India’s response has been consistent and unequivocal: its energy procurement decisions are driven by cost and energy security. The Russian crude is heavily discounted, offering invaluable savings in a global market defined by volatility. New Delhi argues that shifting to more expensive American energy would be a direct compromise of its national interest and would drain valuable foreign exchange reserves needed for development. India is determined to diversify its defense and energy sources to maintain maximum strategic flexibility, a doctrine often termed “strategic autonomy.”
The U.S.-India relationship is a fascinating study in contemporary geopolitics. The approved sale of Javelin and Excalibur systems is a strategic investment in a key security partner, overriding immediate geopolitical grievances like the Russian oil trade. Simultaneously, the core of the relationship remains stubbornly fractured by hard-nosed economic realities, particularly the protectionist impulse of Indian agriculture versus the market-access demands of American farm lobbies.
The dichotomy is clear: In defense and security, the relationship is ascending, marked by deep strategic alignment and technology transfer. In trade and economics, it is stalled, mired in the domestic politics of two democratic giants. This balancing act, where one hand supplies high-tech missiles while the other attempts to pry open markets for soybeans, is the new normal—a testament to the transactional complexity of great power partnerships in the 21st century.
Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed in this article/column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of South Asian Herald.
