The recent ten-year defence pact between the United States and India marks a new chapter in the strategic landscape of South Asia. Officially framed as a partnership for regional stability and defence modernization, the deal, in essence, raises serious questions about Washington’s long-term strategic intent and its commitment to genuine balance in the region.
India, historically Pakistan’s most uncompromising rival, continues to expand its military capabilities under the rhetoric of national security and counter-terrorism. Yet, its ambitions clearly transcend defence. The ideology of a “Greater India,” embedded deep within the Indian political psyche, seeks to project dominance across South Asia — and beyond. For Pakistan, this is not a matter of paranoia but of lived experience, defined by decades of hostility, border skirmishes, and diplomatic isolation efforts by New Delhi.
At this critical juncture, Washington’s decision to transfer advanced defence technologies and intelligence cooperation frameworks to India inevitably disturbs the regional equilibrium. It may be labelled as a move toward “strategic deterrence” against China, but in practice, it strengthens India’s hand against Pakistan — much as Israel was empowered in the Middle East to counter Arab influence. The comparison, though delicate, is difficult to ignore.
While America often speaks of friendship, mutual respect, and democracy with Pakistan, the implementation of its strategic commitments tells a different story. Pakistan remains a frontline state in the fight against terrorism, a nation that has sacrificed thousands of lives and resources in pursuit of regional peace — often in alignment with U.S. objectives. Yet, the dividends of this cooperation appear minimal compared to the lavish defence benefits extended to India.
Diplomacy is built not only on shared interests but also on fairness. The perception that Washington’s policies tilt decisively toward New Delhi risks alienating a long-standing partner and undermining regional confidence in American impartiality. Strengthening one regional power at the expense of another is not a recipe for peace; it is an invitation to insecurity and mistrust.
No nation questions the right of the United States to pursue partnerships aligned with its interests. However, when those partnerships embolden an aggressor and marginalize a peaceful ally, the outcome is neither stability nor balance — it is polarization. A truly responsible superpower must ensure that its alliances do not sow new divisions or rekindle old rivalries.
Pakistan has always advocated peace, dialogue, and coexistence in South Asia. But the creation of an asymmetrical power structure, fueled by cutting-edge defence deals and exclusive technology transfers, undermines these very principles. If history has taught us anything, it is that military dominance does not ensure security — understanding and mutual respect do.
The world must recognize that regional harmony cannot be built on selective friendships. The United States should reassess its approach before strategic convenience overshadows long-standing cooperation. True partnership demands consistency — not selective favouritism. Otherwise, “friendship with Pakistan and implementation with India” will remain the defining contradiction of American diplomacy in South Asia.