In a rare and sharply worded intervention, two senior former US officials have urged Washington to resist the temptation of returning to a traditional “India-Pakistan” lens while framing South Asia policy. Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and former Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, in a joint op-ed published in Foreign Affairs, have sounded alarm over Donald Trump’s moves in dealing with India and Pakistan, cautioning that such an approach risks undermining years of diplomatic progress. Their arguments come at a delicate moment, with India-US ties strained by trade disputes, frictions over Russia, and growing unease about Washington’s outreach to Islamabad, even as New Delhi deepens its engagements with Beijing and Moscow.
US must resist hyphenating India and Pakistan
Sullivan and Campbell argued that the United States has deliberately tilted its policies in favor of India in recent years and that this shift reflects a clear recognition of strategic realities. “Washington must also refrain from hyphenating its relations with India and Pakistan: there should be no ‘India-Pakistan’ policy,” they wrote. The officials emphasized that while the US retains certain interests in Pakistan, particularly in counterterrorism operations and in monitoring nuclear proliferation, these interests are far narrower and less consequential than its growing range of engagements with India. According to them, the multifaceted stakes involved in Washington’s ties with New Delhi—from technology cooperation to global security to economic partnerships—dwarf what Pakistan offers in the present geopolitical landscape.
Their remarks are not only a critique of Donald Trump’s diplomatic instincts but also a defense of the trajectory of US-India relations under successive administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. For over two decades, American policymakers have carefully nurtured strategic convergence with India, framing it as indispensable to the Indo-Pacific balance of power and as a counterweight to China. Sullivan and Campbell suggested that returning to the outdated framework of an “India-Pakistan” policy risks flattening this carefully built relationship, reducing it to crisis management and zero-sum calculations, which, in their view, is neither reflective of present realities nor conducive to long-term American interests.
The timing of their intervention is significant. The commentary followed Donald Trump’s repeated claims of credit for brokering the May 10 ceasefire between India and Pakistan that ended weeks of heightened hostilities after Operation Sindoor. India, however, has consistently denied any US role in brokering the truce, underscoring that the ceasefire was a bilateral understanding. Donald Trump’s insistence on framing himself as the mediator, despite Indian rebuttals, has revived suspicions in New Delhi that Washington may once again be tempted to insert itself as an arbiter between the two nuclear neighbors. For Sullivan and Campbell, such perceptions must be avoided at all costs, given the damage they can cause to the credibility of the partnership.
The unease has been amplified by Donald Trump’s recent outreach to Pakistan’s powerful military establishment. His decision to host Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, at the White House, where they discussed not only security cooperation but also trade, economic development, and even cryptocurrency, has drawn considerable scrutiny. For observers in India, the optics of this engagement suggested a revival of the transactional ties between Washington and Rawalpindi, a dynamic that New Delhi has long viewed with suspicion. Sullivan and Campbell, by contrast, urged Washington to calibrate its engagement with Pakistan carefully, avoiding any steps that would dilute the primacy of its India relationship.
Tariffs, Russia ties, and China’s looming shadow
Beyond the India-Pakistan framing, the two former officials also trained their fire on Donald Trump’s economic policies, particularly the imposition of 50 percent tariffs on Indian goods. They described the measures as theatrical and potentially damaging, but also noted that Donald Trump often uses such aggressive postures as negotiating tactics before eventually striking deals. Even so, they stressed the importance of signaling to Indian policymakers that the United States must preserve its economic and innovation partnership with India to prevent China from outpacing both democracies in critical technologies. According to them, Washington cannot afford to cede its innovation edge to Beijing, and India remains central to sustaining that advantage.
Sullivan and Campbell described the present downturn in India-US relations as both rapid and regrettable. They attributed this decline to a combination of factors: Donald Trump’s protectionist trade moves, India’s purchases of discounted Russian oil in defiance of Western sanctions, and renewed tensions linked to Pakistan. The relationship, they observed, has become “replete with public insults and recriminations,” a dynamic that stands in stark contrast to the optimism of recent years when both nations hailed each other as indispensable partners in the 21st century.
The op-ed also contained a pointed reminder of why India has emerged as one of Washington’s most important global partners. They highlighted that over the last generation, the United States has come to view India not only as a vast economic market but also as a democratic counterbalance in Asia, a strategic partner in upholding maritime security, and a collaborator in critical areas such as defense, space, and digital technologies. In their view, jeopardizing this progress by short-term political theatrics or by reverting to the old prism of South Asian conflict would be a costly strategic blunder.
Equally striking was their reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent appearance alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Tianjin. By underscoring Modi’s “chummy” interaction with Xi and Putin, Sullivan and Campbell warned that if Washington mishandles its ties with New Delhi, it risks nudging India closer toward its adversaries. The symbolism of Modi’s camaraderie with leaders of China and Russia, they argued, should be taken seriously in Washington, as it reflects India’s options and willingness to diversify its partnerships when it feels slighted or constrained by the United States.
In their analysis, the risk is not hypothetical. They contended that India’s balancing act between multiple power centers—deepening trade with Russia, participating in Chinese-led multilateral forums, while simultaneously courting the West—is a deliberate strategy of hedging. If US policymakers fail to appreciate India’s sense of autonomy and national pride, they could inadvertently accelerate New Delhi’s drift toward Beijing and Moscow. That outcome, they warned, would be strategically disastrous for Washington, particularly as it competes with China for influence in Asia and beyond.
The former officials’ intervention is not merely a critique of Donald Trump’s current trajectory but also an attempt to lay out a roadmap for resetting ties. They urged Washington to recall the fundamental rationale that drew India and the United States closer together in the first place: shared democratic values, converging interests in the Indo-Pacific, and the recognition that the rise of China necessitates deeper alignment among like-minded powers. For them, the lesson is clear—India cannot be treated as an appendage of South Asia policy or as a problem to be managed alongside Pakistan, but rather as a central pillar of America’s global strategy.
