Trump’s South Asia Stance: Looking at India and Pakistan Through the Same Lens – What’s in it for America?

Former US President Donald Trump has once again caused a stir in the constantly changing world of geopolitics with his increased focus on South Asia, especially India and Pakistan. Trump’s previous actions seem to indicate that he sees both countries similarly, which may lead him to underestimate the significant changes India has seen over the last few decades. In addition to being out of date, this one-size-fits-all viewpoint may be detrimental to US interests in the area.

Trump’s South Asia Stance

India is a very different country now than it was seventy years ago. It has become a major democratic actor on the world stage, a technology innovator, and a global economic powerhouse. India’s ascent is evident, as it has launched cutting-edge space missions and emerged as a top investment destination worldwide. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has frequently underlined that India in the twenty-first century is prepared to influence the world order rather than merely take part in it.

Trump’s vision, however, seems to be based on a more conventional, possibly colonial, understanding of the subcontinent—one that treats Pakistan and India equally—despite these changes. In addition to being factually inaccurate, this is also tactically naive. Today, India and Pakistan are two very distinct countries, and confusing them is detrimental to U.S. foreign policy as well as regional stability.

Trump’s involvement in enabling financial assistance for Pakistan via the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is one notable example. On the surface, economic aid may seem like a stabilising or humanitarian gesture, but the true ramifications are far more profound. Peace in the region is seriously threatened by Pakistan’s alleged ongoing hosting of terrorist elements and its covert military-intelligence activities. The United States may unwittingly encourage these actions by providing financial support to Pakistan, further destabilising South Asia.

Recent sad incidents, like the terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which shook not just India but also the international community, have increased this anxiety. The world watched, many in quiet, as terrorism claimed innocent lives once more. Rather than being acts of aggression against a sovereign state, India’s subsequent actions against terrorist networks within Pakistani territory were targeted and justifiable responses. However, the international discourse frequently fails to distinguish between assaulting a nation-state and fighting terrorism.

The problem is made worse by the international community’s silence on Pakistan’s drone attacks into Indian territory. Why is everyone ignoring these obvious acts of aggression? Answers to this question are urgently needed. Perpetrators and victims alike receive a deadly message when terrorism is permitted to flourish within the safety of national borders and when aggression is greeted with indifference.

Herein lays the crucial problem: the United States runs the danger of offending a crucial regional ally if it continues to compare India to Pakistan under Trump or any other government. India plays a vital role in upholding a rules-based international order, is a democratic partner, and is more than just a counterbalance to China.

There are numerous advantages for America in acknowledging India’s unique global role. Greater economic prospects, a stable Indo-Pacific region, and a strong opposition to authoritarian governments are all made possible by a strong India. However, these very goals are undermined if we appease Pakistan without calling for concrete measures to combat terrorism.

The international community must take a clear stand on Pakistan. Countries that support terrorism ought to be punished, not praised. Regional peace and international security shouldn’t be sacrificed for diplomatic convenience.

In his instincts as a negotiator, Donald Trump would lean towards short-term benefits, such pacifying both sides of the India-Pakistan conflict. Real leadership, however, entails recognising and adjusting to the changing conditions on the ground. The India of the Cold War is not the India of today. It is a nation that is entitled to be judged according to its own qualities.

In conclusion, America needs to get past antiquated ideas if it hopes to reap the full benefits of its South Asia policy. It is necessary to assess India and Pakistan using different, practical criteria. Any attempt to group them together could have long-term effects on world stability in addition to running the risk of diplomatic mistakes. Clarity, not ambiguity, is needed in Washington and beyond.