In Trump Vs Clinton Battle, India Will Vote For Continuity Of Policies

Never before have India-U.S. relations followed a consistent, upward trajectory for four consecutive presidential terms until this moment. The fact that this trend was largely unaffected by a change of guard from a Republican presidency to a Democratic one is the icing on the cake.

A recent report on U.S.-India security cooperation by the Washington D.C.-based think-tank Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) describes the state of the relations between the two countries as follows:

Hence, after the dust of the 2016 presidential election settles and a new administration hits the ground running, it will be continuity in cooperation rather than any radical departure from the past, that the Indian government and Indians will be hoping for.

The 2016 elections are themselves a radical departure from the past in many ways – in the narratives used, the tactics deployed, and the rifts exposed. Hence, there is a possibility that if the next administration fundamentally changes the way that the U.S. sees and acts in global affairs, the relationship with India will also experience an inflexion point.

With this uncertainty as a backdrop, this article attempts to answer what the new U.S. president – either Clinton or Trump – will mean for India-U.S. partnership in areas of security, defence, and geopolitics. Are there a few common factors underlying the messages of both candidates in these areas? And how will India react to the change of guard in Washington D.C.?

The Commonalities

Analyses on the divergent policies of the two candidates are aplenty. This article instead asks – are there a few common strands that will determine policymaking in Washington D.C. regardless of who comes to power next?

From an Indian perspective, there are at least three such factors that will guide India-U.S. relations in the next administration.

First, the U.S. is likely to become more inward-looking than it currently is. Whether Donald Trump gets elected or not, the fact that he has come this far in the race itself means that the narrative in the U.S. has found a new equilibrium. Termed as “Trumpism” or “Populism”, this narrative – anti-elite, anti-globalisation, anti-immigration, pro-nation state, and pro-identity – will likely outlive Trump himself. In terms of foreign policy, this means that the U.S. will reconsider its engagements with other nation states across the globe. Questions such as “Why are we in West Asia? Why are we in Afghanistan?” will be back on the table in the U.S. In fact, the long-established American foreign policy goal of preventing regional hegemony will itself be questioned.

Specifically, for India, this change will have two short-term consequences. One, U.S. presence in the western Indian Ocean has for long underwritten security in the region. The U.S. Navy has been the largest contributor of ships in the region since the troubled days of piracy began in 2010. This region is extremely critical for India in terms of trade. Should the U.S. reduce its presence on account of its inward-looking policy, India and other states in the region will have to step up their game to arrive at the common good of security. It will be critical for India to work on enhancing its naval capabilities in the Indian Ocean.

The second short-term consequence of the inward-looking strategy will be felt in Afghanistan. Over the last one year, both these powerful regional actors, have, perhaps for the first time, landed on the same page with regards to Afghanistan. But many people in Afghanistan feel that the U.S. will water down its presence further, making the eastern parts of Afghanistan even more susceptible to a Taliban takeover, backed by Pakistan. In such a scenario, India will have to shoulder more responsibilities in Afghanistan on its own, a situation that will have significant opportunity costs.

The second factor that will determine the new administration’s foreign policy will be its attitude towards China. The U.S. has repeatedly expressed concerns over China’s role in Asia and the world. In this context, India is seen as an important balancing power. As the U.S. looks to reduce its own presence in Asia, it will have to rely on partners, and one such important partner will be India. This will give India a tremendous opportunity to increase its own power projection capabilities. Programmes with the U.S. such as cooperation on aircraft carrier construction, manufacture of U.S. fighter jets in India, and defence relations with Japan and Australia, will be of great assistance in India’s quest to become a global power.

A third factor which is important for India is that the dehyphenation of India and Pakistan in Washington D.C. is nearly complete. The U.S.-India partnership has turned a corner and come a long way from the days when India was viewed merely as one of the two parties in the India-Pakistan rivalry. Though the U.S. still remains Pakistan’s largest export market and a significant contributor of economic and military aid, the equation with India goes far beyond.

Under the new administration, it is unlikely that the U.S. will cut off its relations with Pakistan altogether. First up, it will have to confront the familiar challenge of how to deal with a nuclear state that doubles up as a source of terror. Robert Blackwill, the former U.S. ambassador to India, places the blame of a ‘bewildering’ U.S. policy towards Pakistan on the lack of continuity between successive administrations. His observations can be summarised in this flowchart.

Notwithstanding this confusion in U.S. policy towards Pakistan, India’s role remains vital to the U.S. to counter China’s dominance in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Differences

Having analysed these commonalities that are likely to guide U.S. attitude towards India regardless of who wins, let’s look at the areas, from an Indian perspective, where Trump and Clinton differ significantly.

Without doubt, the singular difference here is in the domain of immigration policy. This issue is vital for India because the people-to-people relationship between Indians and Americans has always left the government-to-government relationship behind. In fact, the interaction between the two nation states in Bangalore, Hyderabad and California is far ahead of the directives agreed on in New Delhi and Washington D.C.

A possible Trump administration is likely to adopt a tough immigration policy by hiking the minimum wage paid to H1B visa holders. On the other hand, Clinton is likely to remain more supportive of Indians’ concerns. As a co-founder of the Senate India Caucus, Clinton has interacted with several Indian IT company heads, and understands how important the issue of work visas in the U.S. is to Indians.

Second, the anti-Muslim rhetoric used by Trump is of immense concern to India. As the second-largest Muslim country in the world, a Trump presidency will put India on the collision course with the U.S. on this issue, and will alienate a number of Indians from the U.S.

India’s Role

Finally, a reality check. It is unlikely that India will figure in the top five priorities of the new administration. The CSIS report describes it accurately.

On India’s part too, it is recovering from decades of anti-Americanism. Whether India opts to bandwagon with the U.S. or play the role of a swing power, the Indian strategic community now agrees that of all the great powers, the clash of national interests is the least with the U.S.

The strategic partnership notwithstanding, India’s importance as a global player primarily rests on its ability to deliver consistent economic growth. This remains the base on which Indian foreign policy and by extension, the relationship with the U.S., rests on. Trade between the U.S. and India is way below its potential. India would be hoping to convert a rapidly growing strategic cooperation with the U.S. into a strong, diversified comprehensive partnership once the next administration finds its feet.

Pranay Kotasthane is a Research Fellow at The Takshashila Institution. He tweets @pranaykotas.

The views expressed here are those of the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of Bloomberg Quint or its editorial team.