India faces a difficult diplomatic balancing act: It needs the US as a partner in technology, defence and the Indo-Pacific, but cannot allow its national interests to become casualties of President Donald Trump’s transactional diplomacy. The tariff offensive, pressure over Russian oil purchases and Washington’s engagement with Pakistan have exposed the fragility of a partnership built over three decades.
US secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent visit, his second to India in five months, offered New Delhi an opportunity to repair strained ties without surrendering strategic autonomy. With trade negotiations showing signs of progress and some punitive measures eased, the question is whether diplomatic warmth can deliver durable gains or merely a temporary reprieve from American pressure.
Rubio conveyed that Washington continues to regard its partnership with New Delhi as strategically significant, while energy cooperation is emerging as another pillar of mutual interest. The visit’s deeper significance lay in indications that the American administration may be reassessing its engagement with India.
Experts say Rubio’s visit was driven mainly by US commercial interests—expanding markets for Venezuelan crude, with India as a key buyer. Though India buys cheaper oil from Russia and Iran, Washington may pressure it to switch, leveraging Ambani refineries to process the crude and turn diplomacy into a strategic energy deal.
For India, the relationship extends beyond access to the American market. It encompasses defence modernisation, advanced technology, investment, supply-chain diversification and cooperation in balancing China’s growing Indo-Pacific influence. A prolonged trade dispute could damage business confidence and complicate strategic coordination.
{{/usCountry}}For India, the relationship extends beyond access to the American market. It encompasses defence modernisation, advanced technology, investment, supply-chain diversification and cooperation in balancing China’s growing Indo-Pacific influence. A prolonged trade dispute could damage business confidence and complicate strategic coordination.
{{/usCountry}}New Delhi must seek more than temporary tariff relief. It needs predictable rules, fair access for Indian exports and protection against unilateral economic measures used as instruments of political pressure. A partnership cannot remain dependable if commercial concessions are periodically threatened by decisions in Washington.
External affairs minister S Jaishankar’s engagement with Rubio, including their interaction alongside UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, demonstrated India’s willingness to maintain dialogue despite serious disagreements. New Delhi has neither abandoned its American partnership nor accepted that cooperation requires unquestioning alignment.
Energy remains a crucial test. India’s purchases of Russian crude reflect considerations of price, availability and national energy security. A country with enormous development needs cannot treat affordable supplies merely as instruments of another country’s geopolitical strategy.
India’s sophisticated refining industry, including the Jamnagar complex, can process diverse grades of crude. But this flexibility should not become an expectation that India will automatically accommodate American energy priorities.
Washington, too, has reasons to avoid destabilising global oil supplies. Higher fuel prices carry domestic political costs for Trump, particularly ahead of the November mid-term elections. India should use this convergence to pursue pragmatic energy cooperation while diversifying suppliers and avoiding excessive dependence on any one country.
The principle is clear: India can cooperate with Washington on energy without surrendering its freedom of choice.
The most persistent strategic disagreement concerns Pakistan. Jaishankar’s emphasis on zero tolerance for terrorism reinforced India’s position that security cooperation cannot be measured solely through trade, energy or defence transactions.
Rubio’s defence of continued American engagement with Pakistan, citing its nuclear status and geographical significance, exposed the divergence. Washington may view engagement as a means of managing regional risks, but New Delhi remains concerned that diplomatic accommodation gives Islamabad strategic space without ensuring accountability for terrorism.
India should not expect one visit to eliminate this difference. It must insist that American engagement with Pakistan be assessed against tangible counterterrorism outcomes. Diplomatic contact is not the same as responsible conduct.
For New Delhi, this disagreement directly affects the credibility of a partnership Washington itself considers important.
Quad provides another measure of whether the relationship can withstand immediate disputes. Rubio’s indication that a leaders’ summit is expected before year-end in Manila, alongside the ASEAN conference, keeps the Indo-Pacific agenda in view.
India values Quad because it advances regional cooperation without obliging members to enter a formal military alliance. Its relevance lies in practical coordination on maritime security, technology, resilient supply chains and regional stability.
Sustained American commitment matters as China expands its economic, technological and military influence. But India’s participation does not imply automatic alignment with every American preference. Quad’s credibility depends on shared interests and continuity, not the absence of bilateral disagreements.
Rubio’s most consequential role may begin after his return to Washington. With direct access to Trump, he can explain why pressuring India risks undermining wider American objectives. India is a major market, an important defence and technology partner, and a consequential actor in Asia’s balance of power.
Yet Rubio’s influence should not be exaggerated. Trump’s decisions reflect domestic political calculations, personal instincts and a negotiating style that treats economic pressure as leverage. Rubio’s assessment cannot guarantee a lasting policy change.
India must combine diplomatic engagement with a clear-eyed assessment of American unpredictability. It should welcome cooperation without assuming strategic convergence will override transactional considerations.
The immediate priorities are a balanced trade agreement, greater certainty over tariffs, sustained energy cooperation and continued momentum in Quad. The longer-term objective is a relationship in which disagreements do not routinely threaten wider strategic cooperation.
India should judge the Rubio visit by outcomes rather than diplomatic optics. The test is whether Washington recognises that a confident India will cooperate where interests converge while retaining the freedom to differ where they do not.
Rubio has opened a window for repair. Turning it into a durable reset will require American predictability and Indian firmness. New Delhi’s goal is not to win Trump’s favour at any cost, but to ensure that partnership with Washington strengthens rather than constrains India’s strategic choices.
(The views expressed are personal)
This article is authored by KS Tomar, strategic affairs columnist and senior political analyst, Shimla.