Indiahas rightly warned the United States against its growing bonhomie with Pakistan. Speaking at the Asia Society Policy Institute, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said, “There are very few countries which have been subjected to the kind of terrorism that we have from a neighbour as part of a deliberate, conscious policy over many, many decades.” Though he didn’t name Pakistan, as such, the reference was obvious, especially because the US itself has suffered because of Pakistan’s dalliance with jihadist terror. It is a well-known fact that Islamabad and Rawalpindi, the political and military capitals of Pakistan, have played both sides of terror; they aided, armed, and abetted jihadists on both its eastern and western fronts, while feigning to help the American efforts to fight Islamists like Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. “Now, if something which matters so deeply to us, there isn’t enough understanding or appreciation or empathy of that, I think that creates a problem too. That you know if... one of my primary concerns is not fully appreciated by my partner, then clearly there is an impact of that on the relationship,” Jaishankar said, alluding to India-US ties.

He has a point. Washington has been claiming, and rightly so, that Tehran has been promoting jihad in the region; in fact, this is one of the factors resulting in the US-Israel alliance’s attack on Iran. At the same time, President Donald Trump was cosying up with Pakistan, especially its Field Marshal Asim Munir, who is the jihadist-in-chief of the notorious ‘terroristan’. Unfortunately, Pakistani leaders’ flattery and shenanigans fooled the world’s most powerful man. The dealings between Trump’s family members and the Pakistani establishment also reportedly cast their shadow on the US-Pakistan ties. While we have unambiguously conveyed our displeasure over the improving US-Pakistan relations, we must not go overboard, which we sometimes do—the recently concluded BRICS Summit in New Delhi being a case in point. Diplomacy is an exercise in balancing interests, not in expressing emotions. The US will pursue its own strategic, economic, and geopolitical interests, just as India must pursue its own. Washington’s engagement with Islamabad may be uncomfortable for New Delhi, but it does not automatically follow that New Delhi should allow this discomfort to define the entire India-US relationship.

The two countries have substantial convergences in the Indo-Pacific, defence, technology, trade, energy security, and counterterrorism. These interests cannot be wished away because of fluctuations in America’s Pakistan policy. New Delhi should continue to remind Washington of Pakistan’s record of supporting and sheltering terrorist organisations, while avoiding the temptation to view every American-Pakistan interaction as a diplomatic setback for India. At any rate, Americans are not so ignorant as to be unaware of Pakistan’s duplicity. India should also resist the urge to turn every multilateral forum into an arena for settling bilateral scores.

The BRICS Summit demonstrated the pitfalls of allowing geopolitical disagreements to overshadow larger economic and developmental objectives. India’s growing global stature demands strategic composure. One need to react to every move by another power; it must assess that move dispassionately, protect its core interests, and keep its diplomatic options open. That is the approach New Delhi should adopt towards the renewed US-Pakistan bonhomie.