&w=3840&q=100)
US balks at India-Russia defence ties: What's delaying Washington's deals?
'That's a way to kind of get under the skin of America,' he said, singling out India's military ties with Moscow and its presence in groupings like Brics, which is perceived to challenge the dollar's global dominance. The message was blunt, but it revealed a deeper truth, despite a loud strategic and diplomatic embrace - the India-US defence partnership remains affected by mistrust, mismatched expectations, and mounting delays.
Why India-US defence partnership has not taken off
Over the last two decades, India has procured nearly $20 billion worth of US-origin military hardware, ranging from C-17 Globemaster and C-130J aircraft to Apache helicopters and M777 howitzers. More recently, India signed agreements for 31 MQ-9B SeaGuardian drones, GE jet engines for fighter aircraft, and joint production of Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stryker infantry vehicles.
But in reality, these headlines hide a growing frustration in New Delhi. Nearly all major US-origin defence deals announced in recent years are yet to materialise. Deliveries of GE-404 jet engines, which are critical to India's indigenous Tejas fighter jet programme, have been delayed, setting the project back by at least two years. Additionally, the long-touted Indo-Pacific maritime awareness package, including the SeaVision surveillance system approved in May 2025, is yet to be delivered. Even the high-profile MQ-9B drone deal remains tangled in a web, with final assembly and maintenance arrangements still being ironed out.
These delays have cast a shadow over the defence relationship, particularly when juxtaposed with India's parallel defence partnership with Russia. Despite geopolitical turbulence, India and Russia continue to co-develop and manufacture systems like the BrahMos missile and AK-203 rifles under the Make in India programme. Their long-standing cooperation is institutionalised through the Inter-Governmental Commission on Military Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC).
US' hesitancy in providing defence equipment and India's 'Aatmanirbhar' push
At the heart of the India-US defence dilemma lies a fundamental misalignment of priorities. India seeks co-development, joint production, and above all, meaningful technology transfer to boost its self-reliance (Aatmanirbhar Bharat). The US, on the other hand, largely views India as a lucrative arms market, offering equipment but rarely the underlying know-how.
Even when co-production is agreed upon, the technologies involved are dated and old. The Javelin missile, developed in 1989 and inducted in 1996, and the Stryker vehicle from the early 2000s, are far from cutting-edge. While still effective, they represent a bygone era of warfare. In contrast, the future battlefield is increasingly being shaped by AI-enabled systems, autonomous drones, and electromagnetic weapons, domains where US-India collaboration has seen little progress.
The contrast is not just technological but economic. A single Javelin missile costs $216,717 (roughly ₹1.9 crore), while a Ukrainian anti-tank drone capable of the same battlefield effect costs just $500 (₹43,685). For India, reliant on cost-effective solutions, the Javelin is a white elephant.
What are the regulatory barriers hindering India-US defence partnership?
India's quest for deeper military-technical collaboration with the US is hindered by a thicket of regulatory and legal barriers in the latter nation. US laws like the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) severely restrict technology transfers, especially for systems involving nuclear propulsion or fifth-generation fighter capabilities.
Conversely, India's defence procurement system, marked by sluggish approvals, budget mismatches, and delayed offset clearances, discourages even the most well-meaning US defence firms. Structural misalignments and unresolved intellectual property concerns further hinder joint ventures.
The Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), once hailed as a breakthrough framework for co-development, has largely under-delivered.
India's geopolitical diplomacy a thorn in US' eyes
India's insistence on strategic autonomy and refusal to enter formal alliances remains a sticking point. While Washington expects alignment in Indo-Pacific military postures, New Delhi walks a tightrope, maintaining ties with the US, Russia, and France in equal measure.
This balancing act has drawn flak in Washington. India's purchase of the Russian S-400 missile system exposed it to potential US sanctions under the CAATSA (Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) law. While the Biden administration held back, the unpredictability of US foreign policy under the Trump administration makes long-term defence planning increasingly difficult for India.
What is the size of India's arms import?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India was the world's largest arms importer between 2019 and 2023, accounting for 9.8 per cent of global imports. In value terms, India's arms imports in 2023 stood at $1.43 billion (in constant 1990 dollars), with Russia still being the largest supplier, although its share has declined from 76 per cent (2009–13) to 36 per cent (2019–23). France and the US have been the biggest gainers.
Therefore, as Lutnick's remarks make clear, the India-US defence relationship may be moving forward, but it is still dragging its feet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
30 minutes ago
- Mint
EU's trade framework with US could offer key lessons for India
New Delhi: The recently-announced US-EU (European Union) Framework Agreement on trade—which maintains a 15% blanket tariff on the bloc's exports to the world's largest economy—could offer important lessons for India as it negotiates its own rules under the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). As New Delhi pursues a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU, experts say the country must secure similar carve-outs and flexibilities, particularly to protect Indian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and exporters from steep compliance costs. Without such measures, the country's firms could face significant regulatory hurdles, while US competitors benefit from preferential treatment, potentially eroding India's competitive position in the European markets. 'For India, which is in the advanced stages of negotiating its own free trade agreement with the EU, these developments carry clear lessons. New Delhi should push for similar carve-outs and flexibilities in CBAM and sustainability rules, especially to shield Indian SMEs and exporters from disproportionate costs," said Ajay Srivastava, founder of economic think tank, Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI). Indeed, the US-EU Framework Agreement on trade also grants the US concessions on European regulatory frameworks, including CBAM and Corporate Sustainability Rules. The EU will provide flexibilities for US SMEs under CBAM, effective 1 January, 2026, and ease compliance under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and Reporting Directives (CSDDD and CSRD) from July 2027, even considering exemptions for firms already subject to high-standard rules. These steps underscore the EU's readiness to accommodate US concerns when market access and strategic partnerships are at stake. A senior government official told Mint that India will need to negotiate its CBAM strategy well with the EU. 'The US-EU trade framework could be useful in this regard," the person added, requesting anonymity. 'India will also seek similar concessions while finalizing the deal," the person added. India's FTA negotiations with the EU aim to expand market access, boost exports, and strengthen strategic economic ties. Key discussions focus on tariff cuts, regulatory harmonization, and protection for Indian companies, especially SMEs, against steep compliance costs. The deal is expected to be finalized by the end of the year. "The EU has shown flexibility by addressing certain concerns of the US under CBAM, including on the de minimis threshold," said Pankaj Chadha, chairman at Engineering Export Promotion Council. "India, as a developing economy, should also negotiate for a fair deal with the EU, aiming for zero CBAM on its exports. Our exporters need a level playing field to remain competitive," he added. Economists, however, do not expect India's exports to see any immediate impact of the US-EU Framework Agreement on trade. 'For India, the US tariffs on EU exports are unlikely to have an immediate impact. Our key export sectors to the US, like RMG (ready-made garments), precious stones, leather, and agricultural products, don't directly compete with the EU," said Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at Bank of Baroda. Sectors such as electronics, which might have overlapped, are largely exempted from the US tariffs, he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Once on top, Mauritius no longer key source of non-resident MF investments
The island nation of Mauritius was the top source of foreign investments into Indian mutual funds (MFs) in 2015, ahead of countries like the US and the UK. It dropped out of the list of major sources for the first time since at least 2011, shows an analysis of data from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Survey of Foreign Liabilities and Assets of Mutual Funds 2024-25 released on August 18. Qatar, Oman, and Hong Kong are among the countries that account for a larger share of foreign investments into Indian MFs. International investors now often prefer to invest directly in India rather than through complex structures; and are increasingly focused on alpha through investment performance rather than tax-related gains, noted Praveen Jagwani, chief executive officer (CEO) at UTI International. Mauritius had been on the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) grey list. The Indian government had also been pushing against structures created solely to reduce taxes, noted Jagwani. 'Global institutions seek greater transparency,' he said. The RBI survey has a list of 11 nations, which are the largest by market value of the units of MFs issued to non-residents (considered a foreign liability). Earlier, investment vehicles in Mauritius would pool capital from largely institutional investors and invest the same in Indian MF schemes. 'Units held in Mauritius recorded a 48 per cent decline, coinciding with the signing of the Protocol to amend the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement during 2016-17,' noted a similar RBI survey in 2017. The numbers have headed downwards since then. Mauritius accounted for ₹5,649.2 crore or 6.6 per cent of total investments in March 2018 and was ranked fifth. This fell to ₹2,619 crore or 1.2 per cent of the total as of March 2024 (rank 11) despite the pandemic boom in markets. In comparison, Mauritius accounted for ₹7,084.5 crore and 12.5 per cent of total investments in March 2015. Mauritius now only finds a mention in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI) in asset management companies or ARCs (₹2,533 crore) and overseas direct investment by them (₹70 crore). Such FDI typically refers to investments made for long-term business purposes in or by the companies managing the MFs, as opposed to investments in the schemes themselves which are typically made for portfolio gains. Institutions like pension funds and endowments historically have been the primary investors via Mauritius. However, direct investments from home countries or through reputable jurisdictions like Singapore are becoming more popular, noted Jagwani. Europeans have regulatory difficulties in buying into Mauritius-based funds, and are investing primarily in funds compliant with the UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) framework, he said. The UAE was another major source for investments into India but the UAE regulator — SCA (Securities and Commodities Authority) — has instituted new rules requiring MFs to be domiciled within the UAE. The US tends to use Mauritius more for private market transactions rather than public securities, he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Lava International in talks with PE funds to raise ₹500-600 crore
To sell 10-15% stake; planned IPO pushed to FY27 premium Listen to This Article Lava International, India's only home grown smartphone brand, is close to raising ₹500-600 crore from private equity investors via stake sale of 10-15 per cent, two people aware of the development said. The Noida-headquartered company's initial public offering(IPO), which was planned for FY 26 earlier, has now been pushed to financial year 2027, one of the people said. 'Talks are on with two Indian and one US-based private equity investor. Due diligence is going on, and it is likely to be concluded within next three to four months,' the first person aware of the
