Why USA is so Benevolent towards India?

Imperial Benevolence of USA Towards India: Chapter 10.

In the previous nine chapters we traced eighty years of American benevolence toward India. Before 1947, Britain performed the same service for two centuries. They drained forty five trillion¹ dollars worth of resources from India, by some estimates. As a return favour for this extraction, they posted racist signs outside British owned estates reading Dogs and Indians Not Allowed. What Marco Rubio articulated in Munich² about anti-colonial uprisings as wounds to be reversed, Britain had already lived as policy. Britain is now suffering its karma.³ America is still in the middle of earning its own.

The question this chapter answers is simple. Why USA is bestowing it’s benevolence towards India?

The short answer is fear. Not strategic competition. Not economic rivalry. Fear. The fear arise from their own past conduct towards other. They fear that they may not be at the receiving end, sometime in future.

The Geometry of Fear

The entire Western world shares this fear to varying degrees. Its origin is not complicated. Every time Western countries have held power over non-Western ones they have exploited them, enslaved their people, looted their resources, and written the history to make it sound like savagery.

India is the largest, oldest, and most intellectually self-aware of the countries that experienced this treatment. It has not forgotten Operation Sanskrit Mill.⁴ It has not forgiven. It has simply waited for wheel of time to turn. It has turned. It is no more on the menu. It is on the table.

When Christopher Landau spoke at the Raisina Dialogue⁵ in 2026 and said America would not make with India the same mistake it made with China. He said USA will not allow market development until the student became the rival. He was not making an economic argument. He was making a confession. He was saying that America’s policy toward rising powers is not partnership. It is management. And that management has a ceiling above which no non-Western country is supposed to rise without American permission.

India heard it as exactly that. So did every diplomat in the room.

The China example Landau chose was revealing in what it omitted. China did not become a rival because America helped it develop. China became a rival because it was willing to use every instrument of state power, including pandemic opacity in 2020, to advance its position regardless of the cost to others. That is what produced friend-shoring and decoupling. The fear is not of a trading partner that outcompetes. It is of a state that operates without the rules America wrote for others while exempting itself.

India is not China. But America cannot quite bring itself to believe that because believing it would require trusting a country it has spent eighty years managing rather than partnering.

The Diaspora America Cannot Read

Thirty million Indians live outside India. Most maintain their connection to the roots in ways that no other diaspora of comparable size does. They send remittances, they vote in Indian elections emotionally if not literally, they carry the memory of what India was and the ambition of what it is becoming. They are present in American universities, hospitals, technology companies, and increasingly in American politics itself.

This diaspora frightens America more than any weapon India could build. A weapon can be sanctioned. A diaspora cannot. When an Indian American becomes a senator or a surgeon or a CEO, America cannot decide whether that person’s primary loyalty is to the country that made them or the country that made their parents. The answer is usually both, which is the one answer America’s binary framework cannot process.

The 1.4 billion population behind that diaspora is its own category of fear. Europe twice over plus America added to it. A civilisation of that scale, with that memory, becoming economically and militarily self-sufficient, is a fact that changes the architecture of the world regardless of what any American administration decides to do about it.

Strategic Autonomy as Provocation

India’s refusal to choose sides is read in Washington as hostility. It is not. It is principle that happens to be inconvenient.

India buys Russian oil because it is cheap and available. It buys American planes and helicopters because they are sophisticated and the relationship is useful. It trades with China because the border is long and the economic logic is real. It signs free trade agreements with Europe because Europe asked correctly. It attends Quad meetings because maritime security matters. It does all of this simultaneously and sees no contradiction because there is none.

Washington sees contradiction because Washington’s binary framework requires allies to perform their alignment visibly and constantly. India performs nothing. It acts on its interests and calls the result foreign policy. That clarity, which looks like independence because it is independence, produces the kind of cold welcome that Rubio received. No hostility, just precision.

Europe understood this and adjusted. The EU-India trade deal, with Ursula’s carefully researched wardrobe as its advance signal, was Europe accepting that India would not perform alignment but would honour commitments. That is a mature diplomatic relationship between equals.

America has not yet made that adjustment. It still arrives expecting performance and receives parity instead.

The Epistemological Collapse

The deepest reason for American failure in India is not strategic. It is intellectual.

This series opened with a bandmaster uniform and a seven minute AI conversation. It closes with the same diagnosis. The United States, which built every major artificial intelligence system currently operating, which houses the world’s greatest research universities, which has the largest embassy in India and has had it for decades, consistently knows less about India than a citizen in Delhi with a slow locally running AI and an honest question.

This is not a staffing problem. It is not a budget problem. It is an epistemological collapse that runs across American institutions. The assumption that familiarity equals understanding. The assumption that access equals knowledge. The assumption that being the most powerful country in the room means being the best informed one.

I documented this collapse across sectors in my 2025 book Accidental Empire⁶. This series has demonstrated it in entire society across nine chapters. A diplomat who cannot read the semiotics of a bandhgala. A Secretary of State who visits a Mughal mausoleum to show respect for Indian culture while skipping the most visited temple in the country. An advance team that does not check the weather. A principal who sleeps in a royal family’s hotel without knowing their name.

These are not coincidences. These are symptoms of an institution that stopped asking honest questions some time ago and has not noticed the silence.

American Curiosity Vacuum

The answer to American failure in India is not a better ambassador or a smarter advance team. It is a library. It should understand that the country it is trying to manage invented the science of state management before Greece had a written alphabet.

The Arthashastra, written by Kautilya in the third century BCE, is the oldest surviving treatise on statecraft. It predates Machiavelli by seventeen centuries. It predates Clausewitz by twenty two. It covers diplomacy, espionage, treasury management, war, and the psychology of power with a precision that no modern strategic document has matched. It was buried by British colonial scholarship because a civilisation that produced it could not be simultaneously described as primitive and in need of civilising. One of those two things had to go. The British chose to bury the book.

Indian strategic thinkers read it. Doval has read it. The people sitting across from American diplomats in every significant negotiation have read it or absorbed its logic through a culture that never entirely lost it even when the text was suppressed.

America arrives in India carrying Clausewitz and Kissinger. India receives it carrying Kautilya and five thousand years of watching empires come and go. The epistemological gap is not about intelligence. It is about depth. One tradition is three centuries old. The other is fifty centuries old and was interrupted but not destroyed.

Asur Yudh

Kautilya identified categories of warfare that American strategists are rediscovering through expensive war experience. Asura Yuddha is total war, complete abandonment of ethical constraint, deliberate targeting of civilians, destruction rather than measured conquest. Ancient kings understood its temptation and its cost. Crossing into total war destroys the moral authority necessary for sustainable rule. Without moral authority you can only rule through fear. Fear requires constant force. Constant force consumes treasury. Consumed treasury produces more enemies. The cycle is self-defeating and Kautilya mapped it precisely twenty three centuries ago.

As it was explained in Chapter 27 of American Empire, America crossed into Asura Yuddha in Bangladesh in 1971. It has never recovered its moral authority in India since. Every subsequent gesture of partnership has been received through the filter of what happened when American weapons were used to hunt Hindu families house to house in East Bengal while Kissinger told his staff why would we give a damn about Bangladesh.

Kautilya also wrote that war is never for glory. Its aim is protection of the state and acquisition of resources. There should be no exploitation of the earth. Gentle extraction without harming the ecology. What are wars being fought about by USA? Decide for yourself.

Summing Up

Look at American conduct in Pakistan across eight decades. Eighty billion dollars in aid that built an army which fought four wars against India, sustained thirty years of terrorism in Kashmir, harboured Osama bin Laden eight hundred metres from its premier military academy, and funded the other side of the war America was paying it to fight. This is not Kautilyan statecraft. It is not even coherent statecraft. It is the behaviour of a power that confused the size of its treasury with the quality of its thinking.

Kautilya would have identified Pakistan as a client state that had become a liability three administrations ago. He would have identified India as the natural long term partner before Robin Raphel was born. He would have told Kissinger that sacrificing Bengali lives for a China channel would produce a permanent account payable in Indian strategic memory, and that the interest would compound across generations.

America is trying to manage a civilisation it cannot read, using vocabulary that cannot name what it is dealing with, through institutions that stopped asking honest questions, advised by people who flatter rather than correct.

India is waiting with the patience of five thousand years.

The bandmaster played on.

---

References