In a rare and unusually candid conversation in Washington D.C., Dhruva Jaishankar — son of India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and one of the sharpest strategic minds in the India-US ecosystem — dismantles comforting illusions about trust, exposes the hard logic of power politics, and explains why India’s future will be shaped less by ideology and more by cold national interest.
From trade wars and semiconductors to China and strategic autonomy, the Observer Research Foundation America chief explains why geopolitics is ultimately about leverage, systems, and survival — not sentiment.
Q&A:
Q: Your book Vishwa Shastra lays out a strategic framework for India’s foreign policy. In the current landscape of US-India trade frictions alongside deepening defense and tech ties, what’s one key principle from the book that you believe should guide the relationship over the next few years?
A: The book argues for an interest-driven worldview to guide policy. I make the case that contrary to scholarship that focuses on status or ideology as India's primary motivations, that interests should be a guiding principle for India in a messy and competitive world. The book was written before Donald Trump’s re-election but many of those principles still stand. The United States remains India’s most important partner in many areas, including for the people-to-people relationship, market access, investment, and technology, and in many areas related to security and energy. But there are also key areas of difference that must be addressed directly, including on Russia, Pakistan, regional relations, and some trade, multilateral, and social issues. India is far less dependent on the U.S. than many other countries, but it is natural for India to continue to increase its autonomous capabilities and diversify its partnerships.
Q: Building on that, the recent India-US trade agreement has been described as a “mini-deal” that reduces tariffs and buys time. Is this primarily a tactical pause, or does it create genuine momentum toward the long-discussed $500 billion bilateral trade target?
A: Trade between India and the United States has been growing and will continue to grow regardless, especially as key Indian industries and services come into their own. The interim trade deal is itself in limbo due to legal uncertainties in the U.S. but the outline of a more comprehensive trade agreement is already in place. Once there is greater clarity about the United States’ overall trade policy, it will likely be concluded. But it is very different from the FTAs India is signing with others, such as the UK and EU, due to the lack of U.S. legislative authority. It is unlikely that a U.S. president will receive trade promotion authority from the U.S. Congress any time soon.
Q: How do you see the balance between reciprocity and strategic trust in the current India-US dynamic? Has Washington shifted toward treating India more as a genuine partner, or do we still see elements of the old “transactional” mindset?
A: It's quite clear that the U.S. has always been transactional and is becoming more so. Strategic trust, insofar as it exists, is mostly a product of transparency of systems and autonomous actors (such as the private sector) who can operate independently of the executive government. These factors are what distinguishes both the U.S. and India from, say, the People’s Republic of China.
Q: In a period of intense US-China competition, how should India and the US calibrate their approach toward Beijing so that strategic alignment doesn’t force New Delhi into uncomfortable binary choices?
A: One, there are questions about how intense the competition is at the moment, with at least a momentary thaw underway. But I would assess that structurally US-China competition will continue to intensify for a variety of reasons. Two, the reality is that uncomfortable binary choices will have to be made, less because of U.S. wishes and more because of Indian interests. How much, for example, will India want to give Beijing leverage over telecommunications systems, critical supply chains, or maritime security? A global superpower rising at one’s doorstep is bound to have tremendous implications.
Q: Defense and tech cooperation (iCET, semiconductors, critical minerals) often get headline attention. Which area do you believe holds the most transformative potential for the partnership in the next 5–7 years?
A: ICET saw meaningful progress on defense, space, semiconductors, and telecom, but was underwhelming on AI and quantum. Today, AI and space have tremendous potential, and we saw glimpses of that during the AI Summit in India. The start-up ecosystem in India is quite impressive and many of the younger corporate leaders quite ambitious in their global objectives.
Q: If the India-US relationship were a long-running Bollywood saga, are we currently in the high-drama interval before the grand climax, or have we finally moved into the celebratory song sequence phase?
A: Neither! Both sides desired a more ambitious relationship, realized both the advantages and limitations of their partnership, and now realize that each is indispensable in certain ways. In other words, we have moved from Dil Chahta Hai to Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham to Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna.
Q: What’s one underappreciated priority or persistent myth in India-US relations that you wish both sides would address more candidly as India’s global weight continues to grow?
A: There are a lot of persistent myths. It is not true, for example, that the U.S. has never stood by India during crises or never facilitated the transfer of technology. But neither is it true that the U.S.-India relationship is a relationship grounded in trust or shared values or that there are not some fundamental differences. One of the biggest challenges is a lack of knowledge or awareness in the United States about India: apathy and ignorance are still more widespread than malevolence.
Also Read:
THE JAISHANKAR DOCTRINE 2.0 |
