Decoding Trump’s Cold Realism On India: Why Pakistan Seemed More Valuable To Washington

Explore how Trump’s Cold Realism on India shaped U.S. foreign policy—highlighting why Pakistan’s strategic offers outweighed India’s autonomy in Donald Trump’s transactional worldview.

Table of Contents

Introduction: What Trump’s Cold Realism on India Reveals

When Donald Trump assumed office in 2017, expectations ran high in New Delhi. Many predicted a strategic upswing in India-U.S. relations.

Trump’s business-first persona seemed aligned with India’s emerging economy, and the global balance of power, particularly in Asia, demanded closer Indo-U.S. coordination. However, what transpired instead was a cold recalibration.

Former Indian National Security Advisors (NSAs) like M.K. Narayanan and Shivshankar Menon have analyzed this shift in detail.

They argue that Trump’s approach to India was driven by a form of foreign policy now termed “cold realism”—a hyper-pragmatic lens that values only what a country tangibly offers the United States.

This article explores this doctrine and why, under its rubric, Pakistan appeared more strategically valuable than India.

What is Cold Realism?

Former NSA M.K. Narayanan coined the term “cold realism” to describe the Trump administration’s foreign policy. Unlike traditional realism, which balances national interest with global stability and alliances, cold realism is a sharper, narrower construct.

It dismisses ideological considerations such as democracy, environmental policy, or human rights. Instead, it seeks immediate, transactional gain.

This is not unprecedented in U.S. history—figures like Henry Kissinger built U.S. diplomacy on realism. But Trump’s variant took it to new extremes.

According to Narayanan, Trump’s diplomacy operated at 90-100% cold realism, where the sole metric of engagement was “what’s in it for the U.S.?”

India’s Place in Trump’s Global Hierarchy

Trump viewed the international order in a tiered system:

Tier 1: Superpowers like China and Russia
Tier 2: Mid-tier nations with limited leverage, including India and Pakistan

This classification wasn’t just symbolic. It shaped policy choices. While India saw itself as a rising global power, Trump reportedly did not.

He perceived India as offering limited strategic or economic returns to the U.S., and often bundled it alongside Pakistan, despite their vastly different political systems and global roles.

Trump’s Cold Realism on India Effect: Why Pakistan Was Seen as More Valuable

From the lens of cold realism, Pakistan checked more boxes:

1. Geostrategic Location

Pakistan’s proximity to Afghanistan, Iran, and the Gulf made it a vital player in regional stability. It allowed the U.S. to use airbases and facilitated military operations during the final phases of the Afghanistan war.

2. Access to Resources

Pakistan opened discussions on allowing U.S. access to its rare earth mineral reserves, a vital component for high-tech industries.

3. Compliance in Intelligence Operations

Trump admired Pakistan’s willingness to engage in covert operations, especially involving surveillance in Iran or counter-terrorism in Afghanistan. These services, in his view, added tangible strategic value.

4. A Transactional Ally

Pakistan’s attitude toward foreign policy is often “money for services”—a transactional model that appealed to Trump. It offered direct services in return for aid, aligning perfectly with his cold realist ethos.

India’s Strategic Autonomy: Misalignment with Trump

India, on the other hand, has long followed a policy of strategic autonomy. Even as it engaged with the U.S., India refused to become a subordinate ally. This independence is deeply rooted in its non-alignment philosophy.

India was also hesitant to fully militarize the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), preferring a more balanced engagement. Trump, however, wanted Quad to serve as a direct counter to China—a proposal India approached cautiously.

India also resisted U.S. trade pressures, especially on digital taxation and agricultural markets. From a cold realist standpoint, India seemed like a difficult, high-maintenance partner with limited returns.

The Analysis from India’s Former NSAs

M.K. Narayanan

Narayanan’s writings emphasize that Trump’s cold realism neglected long-term strategic partnerships. He noted that despite India’s democratic credentials and shared values with the U.S., Trump was unmoved unless there was a direct benefit.

Shivshankar Menon

Menon argued that India’s refusal to align 100% with Washington was interpreted as weakness. In Trump’s worldview, allies are either “with us or against us”. India’s nuanced diplomacy didn’t fit.

A Crossroads for Indian Foreign Policy

This experience under Trump offers India a critical lesson. The evolving global order increasingly demands clearer alignments. Strategic ambiguity might no longer serve national interest. According to former NSAs, India must now:

Reassess its multi-alignment strategy
Define clearer roles within strategic blocs like Quad
Offer tangible value in defense, trade, and technology cooperation

In other words, India must move beyond passive diplomacy and begin leveraging its assets in a more transactional framework, even if it means recalibrating long-held doctrines.

Conclusion: Preparing for the Post-Trump World

Trump’s Cold Realism on India was not an anomaly; it could become a recurring theme in future global engagements. While Biden restored some value-based diplomacy, the return of cold realism in international politics is likely.

India must be ready to make tough choices. It can no longer afford to rely solely on goodwill or ideological alignment. To remain relevant in the 21st-century power game, India must offer concrete strategic value to its partners.

The message from India’s former NSAs is clear: the time for strategic ambiguity is over.