Raisina Dialogue 2026 Part 2 - Sandeep Bhalla's Analysis

(Part 2)

USA Shows Its Hand at Raisina Dialogue 2026.

Table of Contents

The most interesting speech made in Raisina Dialogue 2026 was that of Christopher Landau, the Deputy Secretary of State of USA. He proved an old proverb right. The proverb is “It is better to be silent and look stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.” Theology too says something similar:

Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.” (Exo 4:11-12)

He spoke and removed all the doubts the world was having about USA. The first was that it is declining power and its official shoots from mouth first and then retract their words by there docile conduct. Lutnick had publicly humiliated himself by saying India would apologize and come to the table, then quietly flew to New Delhi unannounced after the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, ate lunch, posted a smiling photograph, and left without a deal.

The man who said India would apologize, apologized without using the word. It appears Landau is following similar trajectory.

USA’s Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau

Landau spends the first half explaining why America had no foreign policy vision for 35 years. He presents this absence of strategy as something Trump heroically discovered and corrected. But he is describing a catastrophic institutional failure of the country he represents, at a conference where he is supposed to project strength. That is an extraordinary own goal dressed as candor.

Then he put his foot in mouth by comparing India with China. He spoke:

“….I am not here to do social work or charity. I am here because it is in the interest of our country, and we think it is in the interest of India to deepen our partnership, and it obviously has to be based on reciprocity and mutual respect. ………”

Landau speaks of reciprocity and accountability to the American people. The question worth asking is which American people. An analysis of American demographic and tax data using food-price purchasing power parity rather than official exchange rates reveals that approximately 60% of Americans live in conditions that would qualify as poverty by global purchasing standards. The country projecting commercial strength at Raisina is the same country where a Domino’s pizza costs fifteen times what it costs in India, and half the workforce earns what amounts to poverty wages by any honest measure. Read the full analysis here.

Yet Landau arrived in Delhi speaking the language of a creditor nation. Landau is doing what in a Punjabi saying is called “eating peanuts and farting almonds”. His own countrymen are reeling in poverty with no solution in sight. His own country is under debt about to touch $40 trillion and he has gumption to say this in condescending voice:

“…..But again, India should understand that we are not going to make the same mistakes with India that we made with China 20 years ago in terms of saying, we are going to let you develop all these markets, and then, the next thing we know, you are beating us in a lot of commercial things. We are going to make sure that whatever we do is fair to our people. Because ultimately, we have to be accountable to our own people, just as the Government of India has to be accountable to its people…..”

That is not diplomatic language. That is a threat without wrapping it in diplomatic language. Former US diplomat Bonnie Glick said the comparison was a matter of “apples and oranges”. She was only partially right. The fact is that the comparison between India and China was a comparison between cheese and chalk. Let me explain.

China Comparison

Landau’s China comparison assumes that America’s problem with China was that America was too generous, too trusting, too open. That is the self-serving version. The actual story is that American corporations moved manufacturing to China because it maximized their profits, and American politicians enabled it because those corporations funded them. American shareholders were the beneficiaries. The working class Americans were the victims.

China’s rise was an American project. American capital, American technology, American market access, American political protection inside WTO. When China then used all of that to beat America commercially, Americans called it betrayal. It was not betrayal. It was a predictable outcome.

India Story

India did it without support of USA rather inspite of USA sanctions after Pokhran. Twice. Technology denial regimes. Restricted access. Decades of being lectured about democracy and human rights by countries that were simultaneously arming Pakistan. The non-proliferation treaty used as a leash. Every time India showed strategic independence it was punished, not rewarded. It received no Foreign aid or Investment. Not from USA anyway. Not until this decade when the entire world rushed to invest in India.

India’s domestic consumption base, that 66% number, is the crucial fact that never appears in Western analyses of India’s rise. It means India built its economic resilience from within. It was not export dependent the way China is, which also means it cannot be strangled the way China can be strangled through tariffs. India’s growth is structurally harder to weaponize against India. USA tried it recently with tariff but it failed as predicted.

AI Technique

When it came to question and answer session Landau heard a keyword from each question, immigration, energy, technology, Middle East, and delivered a prepared paragraph on that keyword regardless of what was actually being asked. The questions were asking for strategic depth. He returned talking points. See this abstract summary:

Question 1: How do regions like Europe, Indo-Pacific, Indian Ocean fit into American foreign policy priorities?

He answered: America ignored its Western Hemisphere for too long, I visited Pacific islands, London and Paris are no longer the center. He described his travel itinerary. The actual question about how India and Indian Ocean fit into a coherent strategic framework was never touched.

Question 2: With 11 million Indians in the Gulf, energy supplies threatened, conflict unfolding, what is the end game for the Middle East?

He answered: Iran bad since 1979, nuclear weapons dangerous, North Korea mistake, Iranian people deserve better leadership. The actual question was what is America’s exit strategy and how does India’s energy security and diaspora factor into American calculations. He never addressed either.

Question 3: Russia supplies India cheap oil. What is America’s answer to that?

He answered: Buy American energy. Full stop. No pricing, no logistics, no supply chain, no timeline. A bumper sticker pretending to be an energy policy.

Question 4: Two ten trillion dollar economies partnering, what does that model look like?

He answered: AI is important, 700 American companies in Bangalore, India has potential, Indian diaspora in America is successful. The actual question was about structural redesign of a partnership between two peer economies. He responded with compliments.

Question 5: How does Trump administration nurture the human bridge, diaspora, university connections?

He answered: Illegal immigration is bad, we are fixing borders, we need to assess what is in it for America before educating foreigners. The question was specifically about legal students, researchers, cultural exchange. He answered about people crossing the Mexican border.

Diplomats do it all the time. But they steer the answer away from question subtly. They do not confabulate the way Landau did. It was raw inadequacy visible to all. He seemed unfamiliar with strategic depth, of the issues and was deflecting to escape.

Declining Empire

Rubio in Munich and Landau in Delhi are the same speech in different clothes. Rubio told Europeans that Western civilization is under siege and must reassert itself. Landau told Indians that America will partner with them but will not repeat the China mistake.

Both speeches are products of the same anxiety: a declining power that built its dominance on a particular world arrangement, now watching that arrangement dissolve, and trying desperately to find new anchors. A genuinely confident power does not need to announce its greatness in Munich or warn partners in Delhi about commercial competition. It simply acts. The announcement is the symptom of the insecurity, not the evidence of the strength.

Both are rewriting recent history in real time, before an audience that lived through colonization and knows exactly what rewriting history looks like.

American Credibility

America built genuine institutional credibility over decades. The Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, the post-war architecture, whatever its flaws and self-interest, required sustained commitment, predictability, and the appearance at minimum of thinking in decades. Other nations organized their own futures around American reliability. That credibility was a real asset, arguably America’s most valuable one, more durable than its military and more portable than its economy.

What Lutnick, Landau, Rubio and the current dispensation are burning through is precisely that credibility. Not slowly. Publicly, on podcasts, in interviews and at conferences.

The Indu trading tradition discussed here is the precise inversion of what Trump calls unpredictability as strategy. In that tradition a merchant’s word traveling on a slow boat was worth more than a signed contract from an unreliable counterparty. Predictability was not weakness. It was the foundation of commerce across generations.

These people will go. But institutional credibility of USA, once spent publicly this way, does not automatically return when the personnel change. The next American administration will arrive at tables where other nations have already quietly diversified.

Their ‘unique’ way of stopping the decline of USA will end up accelerating it.

References:

Share on Social Media