India-US strategic dialogue

The US is currently engaged in strategic dialogue with both major states of South Asia. The dialogue with the Indians was meant to iron out some tactical problems in various areas including education, trade and counter-terrorism. The highlight was their discussion on counter-terrorism in which the Indian side emphasised the importance of getting access to David Coleman Headley, the man suspected of involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks. Washington had agreed to provide Indian investigators access to David Headley. However, the US authorities have signed a plea bargain with him, according to which he will not be handed over to either India or Pakistan. Access to Headley was important for the Indians as part of enhancing the bilateral understanding on counter-terrorism. New Delhi is not pleased about Washington not informing them of Headley’s presence in India and his connection with the LeT while he scouted for targets in Mumbai, but later visited Delhi in search for more. Since Headley was also working for the US Drug Enforcement Agency, he was allegedly on the radar of American secret agencies during his trips to India.

The Headley case is a sticky point in the US-India relationship. The Indian agencies are concerned about why Washington didn’t signal them about Headley’s presence in India where he could have easily been picked-up. After all, the US authorities did inform Delhi of a possible terrorist attack planned for a few months earlier than when it actually happened in Mumbai. There is a possibility that Headley deliberately misinformed the US authorities about the exact timing of the attack. The Indian intelligence wants to investigate this and much more. Since the access provided to the Indian investigators was not followed by any angry reaction from Delhi means two things. First, that the investigators did not find any conclusive evidence regarding any links between Headley and the serving Pakistan military. Second, it is also possible that the US might have convinced the Indians to show some restraint vis-à-vis Islamabad and use the information gathered from Headley more strategically to ensure that Pakistani authorities can be helped to wrap up groups like LeT. The majority in the US believes that Pakistan military is keen to sever its links with the militant groups. This is certainly what state functionaries and visiting analysts tell US policymakers.


Ensuring a balance between the two independent sets of dialogue remains critical for Washington. Reportedly, the dialogue with the Indians did not include any discussion on Pakistan. Contrary to what Islamabad tells its local audience, there was no mention of Kashmir. In fact, the US government is not keen to interject on this issue at all. Like the past, Americans are merely interested in acting as a firewall between the two neighbours during crisis and be a source for prodding them into a long-term peace arrangement. Washington does not consider itself in a position to dictate terms to New Delhi especially on the issue of an outstanding boundary dispute. The strategic dialogue with Pakistan has a different chemistry because that is a case of Islamabad and Rawalpindi asking for weapons and economic assistance. However, the more important fact is that the US wants to have a strategic relationship with both regional stakes on the basis of what they can offer in the relationship and the nature of synergy that can be built. Ultimately, the strategic component of the relationship will not just depend on Washington but the value of the partnering states as well. New Delhi has spent a couple of decades, if not more, to lobby for making American understanding the significance of building a holistic relationship with New Delhi. The relationship, hence, is not just based on military-strategic links but on cultural, economic and social ties. While creating a spin-off for other areas, the security ties itself can be considered a spin-in of the overall India-US bilateral ties.

Probably in a few years the US-India relations will become very strong. They will, of course, have differences but also the willingness and understanding to fathom the differences.