Poll result unlikely to alter US’ India course

Rising China necessitates robust India-US ties, irrespective of election outcome.

Washington’s sanguinely friendly embrace of New Delhi in
recent years is not likely to lose any of its warmth irrespective
of who – Kamala Harris or Donald Trump – wins the November 5 US presidential election.

If Vice President Harris wins, she would add some sheen to the relations given her half-Indian ethnicity from her late Tamilian mother Dr Shyamala Gopalan Harris’ side. As for former president Trump, his oft-expressed personal friendly equation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to help the two pick up from where they left in 2020 when the former was defeated.

Ever since former president Bill Clinton paid a seminal visit to India in March 2000, after a gap of 22 years from former president Jimmy Carter’s India visit in 1978, ties between Washington and New Delhi have progressively strengthened under his successors George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Trump and President Joe Biden.

In a sense, that improvement has paralleled the dramatic rise of China in the last three decades, now practically rivalling the United States in its global influence. Keeping in mind the Chinese context, it would be reasonable to expect neither Harris nor Trump in the White House to materially change the direction.

As long as Washington perceives Beijing as its global nemesis – and the prospects of that remaining the case for the next two decades and more are distinct – no US administration would risk diluting its relations with India in the foreseeable future. This is notwithstanding the recent thaw in India-China relations where the two have ended their four-year-old border hostilities. That deal places India in the unique position of having robust strategic relations with America, historically strong relations with Russia, and now somewhat normalising ties with China.

A Kamala Harris-led government is expected to broadly continue the outgoing Biden administration’s studiedly pragmatic approach towards India. Of course, New Delhi is unlikely to forget her seemingly sympathetic statement in favour of Kashmir when the Modi government abrogated Article 370 in 2019: “We are all watching.” She had also been critical of the human rights situation in Kashmir. However, five years is a long time and in her capacity as president, her foreign policy compulsions would be very different compared to her role as vice president.

Trump, on the other hand, is expected to be even less engaged with South Asia as a region and India as its centre other than on his favourite fixation on tariffs. He has been explicit in calling India a major abuser in bilateral trade relations and has threatened a blanket tariff structure on all imports from anywhere in the world, including India. It remains to be seen though whether he carries out that threat to the extent he has boasted about imposing between 20 per cent tariffs (on all countries) and 60 per cent (on China). Other than that, he is likely to be amiable towards New Delhi. Given his radical plans to refashion America in his vision should he return to the White House, India is not likely to feature immediately in his scheme of things.

According to an estimate by Bloomberg Economics, India’s gross domestic product (GDP) will be 0.1 per cent lower by 2028 under Trump tariffs. That is a small number but could have a psychological impact on bilateral relations.

An aspect that is often not recognised when it comes to Trump and India, is his business interests in the country. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author David Cay Johnston, who has covered Trump for the longest period since 1988, “Some of his most profitable investments are in India where he has his name on buildings.” That business interest too could have a marginal impact on the way he approaches India.

Together on critical tech

One area of bilateral relations which is unlikely to be adversely affected under either administration is the initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET). The fact that iCET is focused on strategic cooperation over a spectrum of powerful technologies such as space, semiconductors, and advanced telecommunications is in a way its shield. This is especially because China has been galloping on notching up breakthroughs in these areas and it is crucial for both India and the US to collaborate to ensure that Beijing does not run away with them. The other important areas are AI, quantum computing, biotechnology, and clean energy, all of which will determine the way the world works for the next 100 years.

Not being a globalist, Trump is unlikely to pay significant attention to India’s problematic neighbours like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and to some extent, Sri Lanka and Nepal. This could be in contrast with Harris though even she may not choose to get involved any time soon after taking over.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the two would be in dealing with climate change, whose consequences are felt in India and across South Asia every day. Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and couldn’t care less about it while Harris can be expected to be proactive like Biden, which overall will be beneficial to India.

India has figured only marginally during this presidential campaign as has been the case historically. Trump referred to it derisively while talking about trade and Harris only implicitly while talking about half her ethnic heritage. However, Indian American as a voting population could be decisive in the five swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. A poll by Indian American Impact (IAI) Fund which represents Indian and South Asian communities, found that Harris has a whopping 48 per cent lead over Trump among Indian American voters in these battleground states.

The poll was conducted among 600 likely Indian American voters. There are 400,000 South Asian American voters, a majority of them Indian Americans, in these states, according to IAI. Indian American votes could prove crucial in what has been considered a historically close race.

(The writer is a Chicago-based journalist. Syndicate: The Billion Press)