Why India doesn't need to worry about the Trump-Munir lunch

Indian Express

5 hours ago

US President Donald Trump's recent lunch meeting with Pakistan's Army Chief, General Asim Munir, has raised more than a few eyebrows, particularly in India. Munir is not a well-known figure in Washington's strategic circles and yet, he found himself seated across from the most powerful man in the world. For many, it seemed like a bizarre political detour. But if one strips away sentiment and looks through the lens of history and statecraft, the picture becomes clearer.
As the old adage goes, nations have no permanent friends or enemies — only permanent interests. What we are witnessing is not a departure from norms but a reaffirmation of how American foreign policy has long worked, particularly when it comes to Pakistan.
Pakistan occupies one of the most strategically sensitive pieces of real estate in the world. It borders five civilisational and geopolitical spheres: Indian, Chinese, Central Asian, Persian and Arab. No other space in the world offers such a dense intersection of influence. That alone ensures that Pakistan, regardless of its economic health or internal chaos, will continue to feature in the calculus of global powers.
This is not a new phenomenon. From the 1950s onwards, Pakistan was a member of both SEATO and CENTO — Cold War alliances aimed at containing communism. In 1960, CIA pilot Gary Powers flew a U-2 spy plane from Peshawar over Soviet territory, which was later shot down, sparking an international crisis. In the 1970s, Pakistan served as the covert conduit through which President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger opened diplomatic relations with China.
Crucially, after 9/11, Pakistan's territory became indispensable for US operations in Afghanistan. Whether it was providing a logistics corridor for NATO supplies, intelligence coordination (however uneven), or access to airbases, Pakistan allowed America to wage a two-decade war in its backyard without the financial and operational burden of establishing new infrastructure in Central Asia. Without Pakistan, the Afghan war would have cost three times as much and been logistically far more challenging.
Many Indians are rightly puzzled by Washington's recurring tilt toward Pakistan, especially when it is common knowledge that Pakistan has harboured and supported anti-India terror networks. However, the US Department of Defence has maintained a deep institutional relationship with the Pakistan army that survives changes in political mood. America may mistrust Pakistan's civilian governments or even its double-dealing on terrorism, but it views the Pakistan military as a rational, hierarchical force that can 'get things done'. I attended training courses and programmes in the US. I can state that in a lineup of Indian and Pakistani officers from the armed forces, an American general will always shake hands first with the Pakistanis.
That calculus has not changed. Trump's meeting with Munir signals a tactical re-engagement rather than a fundamental strategic pivot. The US may be planning for renewed contingency operations in Afghanistan, hedging against China's Belt and Road Initiative via CPEC, or managing risks in Iran and Central Asia. Pakistan is relevant in all these theatres.
At the same time, India must recognise that its own strategic partnership with the US remains strong and is grounded in very different fundamentals. Since 1991, when India opened up its economy and began integrating with the global order, relations with Washington have steadily deepened. The nuclear deal of 2008, defence cooperation under LEMOA and COMCASA, technology partnerships and the rise of the Quad reflect this.
However, this relationship is not immune to friction. India's insistence on strategic autonomy occasionally confounds American expectations. Nowhere was this more visible than during the Ukraine war. While the West imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia, India chose a path of calibrated engagement — buying oil at discounted rates, abstaining at the UN, and maintaining robust dialogue with both sides. This decision wasn't about fence-sitting; it was about placing Indian national interest above alliance politics.
Washington noticed — and, to its credit, ultimately respected — India's position. But the episode was a timely reminder; even close partners will diverge when their interests do.
Seen in this light, Trump's outreach to Pakistan should not be read as a betrayal or a shift away from India. It is better understood as tactical engagement driven by geography, legacy relationships, and evolving regional threats. Pakistan will always offer America access, whether for leverage in Kabul, observation posts against Iran, or to counter Chinese expansion. But such engagement is opportunistic, not strategic.
India's strength lies elsewhere. We are not a country that offers itself as an operational base or intermediary. We offer long-term strategic value; a stable democracy, a massive consumer market, a growing technological base, a competent military, and a rules-based approach to global governance. We are not transactional in our diplomacy; we are a civilisational state with depth.
Pakistan's ruling elite — particularly its military — has always sought visibility abroad to compensate for instability at home. Foreign engagements like the one with Trump are often used to burnish credentials domestically. But Pakistan's fundamentals remain fragile: An economy in freefall, a splintered polity, and an increasingly alienated populace. America knows this. While it may engage Islamabad's generals from time to time, it does not mistake tactical necessity for strategic trust.
India, on the other hand, has remained firm and predictable through global flux. India remained steady whether it was Covid, the Afghanistan pull-out, or the energy crisis after Ukraine. That is the hallmark of a reliable partner, not one that flits in and out of favour but one that shows up and stays the course.
Let us not be distracted by luncheon invites. Let us remain focused on India's trajectory. We are not a fly-by-night friend of the US — we are a strategic power in our own right. We are neither insecure about Pakistan's moment in the sun nor anxious for validation.
We should be confident that the more uncertain the world becomes, the more valuable India's stability will appear. The US knows this, even if it occasionally wanders in search of old allies for new problems. Real partnership is tested over time — and India has passed that test repeatedly.
The US may dip back into its Pakistan playbook occasionally, but its real bet is on a rising India. That bet may not always be loud, but it will be lasting.
The writer is a former corps commander of the Srinagar-based 15 Corps and a member of the National Disaster Management Authority. Views are personal