The 2012 US presidential election was an extraordinary development. For the first time, it was focused more on domestic issues rather than international. The 2008 recession, budgetary-fiscal constraints and the funding of social programmes were issues of general concern more than the crisis in the Middle East. While China had started figuring in the foreign policy calculus and position statements, India was a still a minnow in the policy paradigm of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

The 2016 presidential election has a sharper domestic focus with both the Republicans and Democrats flaunting the party agendas and plans for a safe, secure and progressive United States of America. However, while China (along with terrorism) has emerged as the primary international consideration for the American presidential candidates, India is almost by default the obvious counter-poise and the kneejerk wooing partner on both the concerns i.e. China and terrorism. With the unipolarity of a ‘superpower’ claim under serious threat, the economic-military influence and leverage of the Americans is clearly over-stretched, weary and exposed. America&’s policy makers have realised the need to bring together ‘like-minded’ countries — beyond the faltering Continental Europe — to counter the new threats.  In true capitalistic style, the ends justify the means and if that entails forging new strategic friendships (e.g. with India) or burying the animosity of the past (e.g. towards Iran), so be it.

Historically, the theory of New Delhi preferring a pro-Democratic dispensation in Washington DC was circulated with the perceived bonhomie between President Kennedy (Democrat) and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. This was a misplaced notion since Kennedy actually thought Nehru&’s statesmanship to be condescending and preachy. This notion of ‘Democratic preference’ was buttressed by the Republican combine of Nixon-Kissinger, dubiously sending the 7th fleet to the Bay of Bengal, during the 1971 war with Pakistan over Bangladesh. But these were Cold War machinations and policy considerations were more ideologically imagined and driven.

The end of the Cold War ushered in a new set of American concerns and diplomatic re-wiring. It is to the credit of the Republican President, George W Bush, that the strategic inclusion of the Indian factor in the US framework started to evolve, albeit for checkmating the Chinese dragon that had started spewing fire against American interests. Subsequently, President Obama adopted a more neutral stand (especially on the burning issue of Indo-Pak relationship), though later his frustration over dealing with the duplicity and insincerity of the Pakistani commitment towards fighting terrorism saw him tilt sharply in favour of India on most issues.

Today, the chessboard of American issues and concerns is far more internalized with the emerging positions of most of the global stakeholders. But for a certain operational consideration and the necessity of maintaining a semblance of normalcy and the status of an ally, given the American lives, stakes and assets deployed in the Af-Pak theatre, there is virtually no common-ground for the Americans with the Pakistanis who are steadily rolling into the willing arms of the Chinese (e.g. the $ 47billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor). As regards the terror ‘nurseries’ in Pakistan, the Americans are left with no alternative but to carry out surgical strikes via the drone attacks, as was done in the case of the Taliban leader, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, or simply ‘take-out’ targets, like Osama bin Laden from a safe-house in Abbottabad. Meanwhile, the Chinese themselves have emerged as the bully in the South China Sea. It will not bat an eyelid to take on the American allies and interests in the region. This warming of ‘all-weather-friendship’ between the two traditional enemies of India (Pakistan and China), has clearly posited the US interests and concerns to converge completely with those of India&’s.

Geo-political issues aside, India like the United States currently, is more internally focused and concerned about its socio-economic progress; it has no expansionist ambitions (unlike China), no religious considerations transcending international borders (unlike Pakistan) and is also sensitive to progressive concerns on such matters as global warming, breaking trade barriers and participative democracy. Intrinsically, the Indian template of governance is ideologically aligned to American values — “in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law”.

Given this alignment of strategic stars, the Indian preference in the US Presidential elections of 2016 is for once, inconsequential as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are favourably inclined towards the Indian angle in the American future, as envisaged. Geopolitical pragmatism will dictate that the strategic alignment between the two biggest democracies in the world strengthens further still, as neither economically nor militarily do the Americans have the wherewithal to sustain and drive the strategic agenda. Hence the so-called ‘pivot’ logic… with India as the central factor in the long-term pespective. It has already started taking shape with the unprecedented NSG nudge from the Americans, convergence on Afghanistan and Iran, joint-concerns and naval exercises in the restive seas, increase in defence deals, understanding on nuclear power and technology transfers. These are tell-tale signs of trust and a trans-continental ‘bloc’.

By extension of the Sino-Pakistani outlook and appreciation, the Indo-US framework and alignment logically extends to the other issues in the Middle East, Central Asian Republics and South-east Asia. Preferential terms of trade, commerce and investments thus become inevitable.

Even though the transformation in the Indo-US relationship has essentially evolved with the emerging global dynamics and shifts (as opposed to any ideological shift in the form of governance in either the USA or India), the transactional nature of such equations cuts across party lines and candidates. Therefore, it is only the implications in the domestic politics of the US or the NRI interests that can swing the Indian preference from one candidate or party towards the other. As for the larger national and geopolitical sphere, the Indo-US strategic alliance is inching towards crystallisation.

The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry.