01 August 2025
(Mains: Editorials Simplified)

INDIA–U.S. TIES: THE STRUCTURAL DIVERGENCE AMID STRATEGIC CONVERGENCE

The India-U.S. bilateral relationship is often termed a “definitive partnership of the 21st century,” especially after the signing of major defence, technology, and trade agreements post-2000. However, recent developments suggest a strain in ties. It hints not merely a diplomatic glitch but underlying structural frictions in the evolving bilateral dynamic.

Structural Factors Undermining Convergence

• Divergent Nationalisms and Strategic Autonomy:

  • India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy clashes with the U.S.'s preference for more aligned strategic behaviour.

  • The rise of "India First" and "America First" doctrines has introduced domestic political pressures that restrict diplomatic flexibility.

• Uneven Expectations from the Partnership:

  • The U.S. expects India to toe the line on key geopolitical issues like Russia, Iran, and China.

  • India resents American “strategic selectivism”, especially its differentiated treatment of India-Russia and U.S.-Pakistan/China relations.

• Asymmetry in Global Roles and Capacities:

  • India aspires to be a balancing power in global affairs; the U.S. views India more as a regional partner with global potential, not parity.

  • India's increasing involvement in groupings like BRICS and SCO, while engaging in the Quad, creates perception of hedging, not alignment.

• Trade and Economic Protectionism:

  • The absence of a trade deal, U.S. pressure to liberalise India's markets, and India’s drive for self-reliance (Atmanirbhar Bharat) have intensified economic frictions.

  • U.S. complaints over digital data localization, e-commerce regulation, and price controls in pharmaceuticals add to the list.

Persistent Bilateral Fault Lines

• Defence and Security Tensions:

• • U.S. discomfort with India’s cross-border military posture (e.g., post-Uri or Balakot strikes), fearing escalatory dynamics in a nuclearized region.

  • India's discomfort with U.S.-Pakistan counterterror cooperation despite Pakistan’s poor track record.

 Technology and Digital Sovereignty:

• • The U.S. pushes for an open digital economy, while India emphasizes data sovereignty and digital regulation as national security tools.

  • Frictions over 5G partnerships, semiconductor investments, and critical technology transfers continue.

• Values-Based Frictions:

• • Growing perceptions in Washington about India’s democratic backsliding and curbs on civil liberties create concerns in U.S. policy circles.

  • While these concerns are not the official position, they influence think tanks, media, and legislative lobbies.

• Multilateral Alignment and Parallel Commitments:

• • India’s simultaneous engagement in Quad (with the U.S.) and BRICS (with Russia and China) creates conflicting strategic messages.

  • U.S. strategic planners seem uneasy with India’s non-aligned behaviour, despite deepening bilateral ties.

Navigating Forward

• Institutionalise the Partnership Beyond Personalities:

• • Build stronger bureaucratic and parliamentary channels that insulate bilateral ties from domestic political cycles and leaders' preferences.

• Calibrate Expectations and Define Red Lines:

• • Acknowledge and accept India’s strategic autonomy as a foundational principle, not a point of friction.

  • Create space for sectoral cooperation (e.g., health, climate, digital economy) while managing geopolitical differences.

• Strengthen Economic Complementarities:

• • Expand investment partnerships in technology, clean energy, and critical minerals rather than focus narrowly on tariff disputes.

  • Promote joint innovation hubs, easing intellectual property issues and enhancing technology co-development.

• Address Third-Party Concerns Proactively:

• • Institutionalise a strategic dialogue on Pakistan, China, Iran, and Russia to prevent misunderstandings and misaligned messaging.

  • Strengthen communication channels during regional crises to avoid diplomatic missteps.

 Promote Plural Multilateralism:

• • Recognize India’s multi-vector foreign policy as a balancing act in a fragmented world order – not a betrayal of partnership.

  • Encourage convergent goals within diverging platforms like BRICS (on development) and Quad (on security).

Conclusion

India-U.S. relations today stand at an inflection point: deeply interwoven across sectors but challenged by mismatched expectations and strategic misalignments. The relationship needs to recognise areas of convergence without overstating the level of alignment. The future lies in patient diplomacy, calibrated pragmatism, and mutual respect for each other’s strategic compulsions – not transactional tests or ideological conformity.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

TOWARDS INCLUSIVE AND TRANSFORMATIVE ECCE IN INDIA

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 marked a paradigm shift in India’s approach to education, placing Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) at the centre of foundational learning reforms.

Key Concepts

• Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE): Refers to a holistic approach encompassing health, nutrition, care, and education with a focus on birth to 6 years.

• Anganwadi Centres (AWCs): Core units under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), traditionally responsible for the ECCE needs of children aged 3-6 years, and health-nutrition services for 0–6 years.

• Balvatika: Under NEP, it refers to three-year preschool program (Balvatika 1, 2, and 3) designed to prepare children for Grade 1 by focusing on development through play-based learning.

Issues and Analysis

• Expansion and Infrastructure Gaps:

  • NEP mandates universalisation of ECCE by 2030, but uneven implementation across states poses challenges.

  • Government schools now shoulder the dual task of expansion and quality assurance in pre-schooling.

• Risk of Early Schoolification:

  • Overemphasis on academic readiness (reading, writing) in preschool settings can undermine the play-based pedagogy critical for holistic early development.

  • Lack of trained preschool educators exacerbates this risk.

• Reorientation of Anganwadi System:

  • As schools absorb 3-6 year olds, AWCs may need to focus exclusively on 0-3 year old care and maternal health.

  • Existing Anganwadi worker training are not adequately geared for intensive home-visiting models, despite their proven impact on early cognitive stimulation.

• Human Resource and Coordination Deficits:

  • Fragmentation between Ministry of Education and Ministry of Women and Child Development causes administrative ambiguity.

  • Anganwadi workers are overburdened with multiple responsibilities and may lack incentives or training to focus on education or home visits.

Way Forward

• Convergent Governance:

  • Institutionalise coordination mechanisms between Education and Women & Child Development ministries at both central and state levels for ECCE delivery.

• Professionalisation and Training:

  • Design specialised ECCE teacher training modules for both preschool educators and Anganwadi workers.

  • Mandate pre-service and in-service training focusing on pedagogy, developmental psychology, and play-based learning.

• Balanced ECCE Curriculum:

  • Develop and implement a context-sensitive, bilingual, play-and-activity-based curriculum for Balvatika and Anganwadi settings.

  • Integrate cognitive, linguistic, motor, and socio-emotional skill-building through everyday activities and storytelling.

• Avoiding Fragmentation:

  • Preserve the integrated nature of ECCE by ensuring nutrition and healthcare services are not sacrificed at the cost of formal schooling.

Conclusion

NEP 2020 has laid the groundwork for a unified and inclusive ECCE ecosystem, but its success lies in balanced implementation that values both care and education equally. India must prioritise developmental equity from birth, ensure inter-sectoral convergence, and nurture a generation of learners who are nourished, nurtured, and ready – not just for school, but for life.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………