The statement suggests that the United States has not been able to provide India with a role in its global strategy that aligns with India's national self-esteem and ambitions. This lack of alignment introduces friction into the ties between the two countries. Let's explore this concept further with suitable examples.

1. Non-Aligned Movement: India's historical and ideological commitment to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which emerged during the Cold War, reflects its desire to maintain independence and sovereignty in international affairs. However, the United States has historically viewed NAM skeptically, as it prefers allies who are more closely aligned with its own strategic interests. This divergence in approach creates friction in the India-US relationship.

2. India's Nuclear Program: India's efforts to develop its nuclear capabilities, particularly the nuclear tests conducted in 1974 and 1998, have posed challenges to its relationship with the United States. While the United States has supported India's civil nuclear program, it has also expressed concerns about the proliferation implications of India's nuclear activities. This divergence in positions limits the extent to which the two countries can fully cooperate in the nuclear sphere, creating friction.

3. Regional Influence: India aspires to be a dominant regional power in South Asia and seeks influence in neighboring countries. However, the United States has its own regional interests and alliances in the Indo-Pacific, often creating divergent objectives. For example, India's close relationship with Iran may conflict with the US's efforts to isolate and contain Iran's influence in the region. This misalignment in regional priorities can create friction between the two countries.

4. Trade and Economic Relations: India has been seeking greater market access for its goods and services in the United States, as well as better protection of its intellectual property rights. However, the United States has been critical of India's trade barriers and policies, leading to ongoing trade disputes. This mismatch in trade priorities and negotiations contributes to friction between the two countries.

In summary, the United States' inability to find a role for India in its global strategy that satisfies India's national self-esteem and ambitions creates friction in their relations. The areas of divergence discussed, such as alignment in global alliances, nuclear policies, regional influence, and trade relations, demonstrate the challenges faced in harmonizing their respective goals and priorities.

The statement highlights a key challenge in the India-US relationship: the lack of a clear and mutually beneficial role for India in American global strategy. This creates friction because it leaves India feeling undervalued and its ambitions unfulfilled.

Here's how this manifests:

1. The "Strategic Partner" Dilemma:

• While the US has designated India as a "strategic partner," this label lacks concrete meaning in terms of shared goals and responsibilities.
• India seeks a partnership on an equal footing, with mutual respect and recognition of its regional and global aspirations.
• Examples:
• Indo-Pacific Strategy: India feels its role in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in countering China, isn't fully appreciated. It desires more tangible cooperation and less unilateral action by the US.
• Trade: Despite signing the Trade Policy Forum, the US hasn't made significant concessions on market access for Indian goods. This hampers India's economic growth and reinforces the perception of unequal treatment.

2. The "China Factor" and Strategic Ambiguity:

• The US-India partnership is often framed in the context of countering China's rise.
• India, while wary of China's growing influence, wants to avoid being seen as a mere pawn in a US-led containment strategy.
• Examples:
• QUAD: While India participates in the QUAD with the US, Australia, and Japan, it remains cautious about antagonizing China and prefers a balanced approach.
• Military Exercises: India's participation in joint exercises with the US is sometimes perceived as a move against China, creating anxieties about its neutrality in the region.

3. Mismatched Priorities and Expectations:

• The US prioritizes issues like counterterrorism and maritime security, which don't align fully with India's concerns.
• India, on the other hand, focuses on economic development, regional stability, and upholding its sovereign interests.
• Examples:
• Nuclear Issues: The US's hesitation to fully acknowledge India's nuclear capabilities and its reluctance to sell advanced technologies creates a sense of distrust.
• Kashmir: While the US considers the situation a bilateral matter, India views it as a core national interest and expects greater understanding from its partner.

4. Balancing Independence and Partnership:

• India is determined to maintain its independent foreign policy and act in its own national interest.
• This can clash with US expectations of a more aligned and supportive partner.
• Examples:
• Russia Ties: India's continued engagement with Russia, a key weapons supplier and strategic partner, can be seen as a challenge to the US-led global order.
• Iran Relations: India's close ties with Iran, a country under US sanctions, can create tensions in the bilateral relationship.

Conclusion:

The lack of a clear and mutually agreeable position for India in US global strategy leads to friction and hinders a truly robust partnership. Addressing these concerns requires greater understanding, flexibility, and a commitment to mutual respect and shared goals, allowing both nations to pursue their individual interests while cooperating effectively on areas of common concern.

The statement suggests that the relationship between India and the United States is hindered by the US's inability to identify a suitable role for India in its global strategy, which would cater to India's national pride and aspirations. This lack of clarity creates friction in their ties, as India seeks a more prominent position on the global stage. Here are some examples to illustrate this point:

1. Limited Seat at the Global High Table: India has long sought a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which is currently dominated by the five permanent members: the US, China, Russia, the UK, and France. Despite India's growing global influence and economy, the US has not explicitly supported India's bid for a permanent seat, citing concerns about UNSC reform. This lack of support has been seen as a snub, denting India's national pride and ambitions.

2. Nuclear Cooperation and Technology Transfer: India has been seeking to expand its nuclear energy capabilities, but the US has been hesitant to provide the necessary technology and fuel, citing concerns about non-proliferation. While the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement (2008) was a significant step forward, India has been frustrated by the slow pace of implementation and the lack of access to advanced technology. This has limited India's ability to develop its nuclear program and has created friction in the relationship.

3. Trade and Economic Cooperation: The US has been pushing India to open up its markets to American goods and services, but India has been resistant to what it sees as unfair trade practices and intellectual property rights issues. The tariffs imposed by the US on Indian goods, particularly steel and aluminum, have further soured the trade relationship. India seeks a more equal partnership, but the US has been slow to address its concerns, leading to frustration and friction.

4. Regional Security and Counter-Terrorism: India has been seeking a more prominent role in regional security arrangements, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), to counterbalance China's growing influence. However, the US has been hesitant to fully delegate responsibility to India, leading to concerns about Washington's commitment to India's security concerns, particularly with regard to terrorism and Pakistan.

5. Defense Cooperation and Technology Sharing: India has been seeking to acquire advanced defense technologies from the US, such as the F-35 fighter jet, but the US has been cautious about sharing sensitive technologies. India's efforts to develop its own defense capabilities, such as the indigenous Tejas fighter jet, have been met with skepticism by the US, which has been slow to cooperate on defense research and development. This has limited India's ability to develop its defense capabilities and has created friction in the relationship.

In each of these examples, the US's inability to find a suitable role for India in its global strategy has led to friction in their ties. India's national self-esteem and ambitions are not being adequately addressed, leading to tensions and disagreements in various areas of cooperation.