Why Trump’s advertised visuals with Shehbaz Sharif should be taken with a pinch of salt: India has come too far ahead to be defined by ‘rivalry’ with Pakistan
Within 24 hours of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, standing astride the Sharm el-Sheikh Gaza peace summit flanked by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, India made headlines of its own.
Source: White House
On 14th October, Google announced a $15 billion investment in a new AI Data Centre in Visakhapatnam. It is going to be the largest bet by Google on India ever. The data centre is being constructed in association with the Adani Group and Airtel.
This starkly contrasts with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s choice to skip the Trump-led summit and send a minister instead, even as Pakistan’s PM Shehbaz Sharif was beaming to share the stage with the US President.
The summit, in fact, was more of a “personal glorification spectacle” for President Trump, with world leaders reduced to “stage extras”. The developments that have happened should serve as a reminder that the optics from Sharm el-Sheikh were theatre, not strategy, something India strategically avoided becoming part of.
Google’s $15B India investment highlights real gains
The Google announcement has shown how US companies are interested in pouring real resources into India’s future. Google’s AI hub in Andhra Pradesh is its largest investment anywhere outside the US, not just in India. This is happening alongside similar tech gambits. Recently, Microsoft has pledged $3.7 billion for data centres in Telangana, and Amazon is planning to invest $12.7 billion more for cloud infrastructure in India by 2030.
The pattern is clear. Global tech giants see India as a booming market for a billion-plus internet users and a skilled workforce, worthy of huge long-term bets. It has to be noted that over the past decade, the Government of India has worked extensively to make it easier for business houses to invest in the country. These projects by tech giants will not only bring foreign investment but will create hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs.
By contrast, US commitments to Pakistan have been very limited and highly conditional. Outside of military aid, which is tied to specific campaigns, American companies have shown no intentions of investing in Pakistan. The Google-Vizag deal alone dwarfs typical US portfolio flows to Pakistan, which total barely a few hundred million a year. In fact, even companies Procter & Gamble have shut operations in Pakistan including manufacturing as part of their global resturcturing. Its subsdiary Gillette Pakistan is also considering discontinuation measures. Microsoft has also announced its departure from Pakistan after 25-years of operations in the country. All these companies, and many more, are leaving Pakistan due to economic and political instability.
Furthermore, the recent announcements made by Trump regarding oil and rare earths in Pakistan are marred with controversies. First of all, there is no hard evidence that Pakistan will be able to provide the oil wells that it has promised to the US. Secondly, the rare earths that Pakistan recently flaunted in the White House during a meeting where Sharif and Army Chief Asim Munir met the US President and his team come from Balochistan.
Source: White House
For those who are unaware, the people of Balochistan do not consider themselves part of Pakistan and are struggling to get independence from the Islamic country. Baloch armed forces have been fighting with the Pakistani forces for a long time to establish a sovereign nation. Top Baloch leaders have repeatedly called out Pakistan’s bluff that it can provide rare earths to the US and categorically said that if Pakistan tries to do so, it will be stealing resources from Balochistan. So, whatever the US and Pakistan announce in terms of trade, deals, and economics, it is mostly on paper, and making it a reality is going to be extremely tough.
PM Modi skips Gaza summit, Sharif soaks up applause
It was not by accident that PM Modi stayed home while Pakistan’s leader flew to Egypt. India was invited for the peace accord and it did oblige, but via the Minister of State for External Affairs and Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Kirti Vardhan Singh. New Delhi’s choice of sending the MoS to represent India signalled clear intent that the PM was not interested in becoming part of Trump’s photo-fest.
India most likely avoided sharing the stage with Pakistan’s PM at the summit. Furthermore, the fact that the US President has claimed repeatedly that he ended the war between India and Pakistan, and India rejecting the claim multiple times including at the United Nations, has already irked Trump. So much so, he is willing to let Pakistan’s PM roll at his feet just to get validation for the claims.
It appears PM Modi wanted to avoid giving Trump a chance to make the claim again or Pakistan making the same claim at the peace accord in his presence. In fact, Sharif did give credit to Trump for “ending the war” between India and Pakistan while nominating him “again” for the Nobel Peace Prize at the Gaza peace accord. He called Trump “the man the world needed most”.
The optics were clearly not India-friendly. Pakistan’s PM stood right behind Trump, and Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir was lauded as the “favourite field marshal” by the US President. Other world leaders were reduced to background cast in a performance only one man seemed to be headlining, and that was Trump.
In short, Sharif’s excitement was a desperate grab for American attention, not evidence of any deep US-Pakistani partnership, which he obviously got.
US-Pakistan ties have been transactional and security-driven
The transactional nature of US-Pakistan ties is nothing new. Over decades, US assistance to Pakistan has come and gone on Washington’s terms. In the late Cold War and post-9/11 periods, Pakistan was useful for the US as a regional proxy. Between 2002 and 2009, when Pakistan was under General Pervez Musharraf, Washington provided around $12 billion in aid. But when strategic needs changed, the taps were turned off.
Not to forget, in 1985, the Pressler Amendment made all US military and economic aid to Pakistan contingent on an annual presidential certification that Islamabad did not have nuclear weapons. In 1990, then-President George HW Bush actually suspended nearly all aid under Pressler, cutting military funds and halting the delivery of 71 F-16 jets. Just a year earlier, the Clinton administration had imposed broad sanctions after Pakistan’s nuclear test. These were not friendly gestures; they were punitive measures when Pakistan strayed from US goals.
During the US’s war on terror, the relationship with Pakistan was fraught. On 2nd May 2011, the US military, under Barack Obama’s leadership, killed al-Qaeda’s chief Osama Bin Laden. US Special Forces stormed Bin Laden’s compound without informing Pakistan. It was a starkly unilateral act, against which Islamabad publicly complained and called it “unauthorised unilateral action” on its soil.
From Islamabad’s view, such actions felt like a breach of trust. But from Washington’s perspective, Pakistan’s utility was limited. It is an ally of convenience for the US, but not one deserving unconditional support or even a say in counter-terror decisions.
The case with India is different. The US has no defence pact with Pakistan and no enduring economic engine to bind it. When the US feels the need, it does not hesitate to cut aid and strike targets without bothering to inform Pakistan. By contrast, US-India ties are governed by a broad “strategic partnership” that includes civilian technology, trade, and mutual security dialogue.
American policymakers openly describe India as a partner in the Indo-Pacific, an economic powerhouse, and a like-minded democracy. Pakistan never enjoyed that status outside of brief wars on terror. In short, Pakistan has always known that US engagement is strictly “yes, we need you for this mission” or “no, we punish you”, a Cold War-style caricature of alliance, not a peer relationship.
Pakistan’s craving for praise, with minimal returns
Given this history, Pakistan’s current spectacle of admiration seems all the more desperate. Pakistani leaders have grown accustomed to seeking validation from the US rather than building parity. Whether it was Gen Musharraf lobbying for George W Bush’s blessing in the 2000s or civilian leaders hoping each new US president might turn the tide of history, Islamabad has always chosen the path of flattery. In fact, in 2006, then-President Bush had called Musharraf “strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistan”.
Yet these gestures yield little strategic payoff. Pakistan has faced severe limits on US investments and trade, mostly because of its leaders’ inability to pursue the US administration and companies for investment, and the economic and political instability that runs deep in Pakistan.
The neighbour is not part of any free-trade agenda, and foreign businesses shy away from its volatile environment. Instead, Islamabad gets token arms deals and security aid when Congress and the president allow it, punctuated by crises of trust. For example, when Pakistan’s deepening nuclear and missile programmes aroused US alarm, Congress stepped in through laws (Glenn, Symington, Pressler amendments) to sanction Islamabad.
Even today, arms sales to Pakistan require a presidential waiver. By contrast, American firms chase Indian consumers and Indian government contracts with enthusiasm. This is only because India offers market access and a friendly legal framework. Indian visionary leaders, including former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have played vital roles in bringing foreign investments during their tenures.
Sharif thanked Trump for the “ceasefire” between India and Pakistan. One can sympathise with him, as a ceasefire meant fewer bombs falling near Islamabad. Sharif cannot openly admit that the ceasefire was actually brokered by India’s Directorate General of Military Operations, and not because of phone calls made by Trump or JD Vance. India categorically refused to accept third-country interference in its security-related matters, and it was only after Pakistan’s DGMO’s request to India’s DGMO that the ceasefire was announced, for which Trump ran to take credit.
India’s firm stand on the ceasefire brokerage did irk Trump. By 2025, American officials rarely even mentioned Pakistan when discussing South Asia. President Trump, between 2012 and 2018, called for cutting all aid to Pakistan. He repeatedly lashed out at Pakistan for sheltering Osama Bin Laden. However, since India took a firm stand in matters involving ceasefire and trade with Russia, especially for crude oil, the US has tilted towards Pakistan, possibly hoping India would react and bend to its demands.
However, India stood firm, even after the US imposed high tariffs on Indian imports. The thing is, India no longer wants to be compared with Pakistan in any terms. In fact, in a recent statement, Minister of External Affairs, Dr S Jaishankar, put it bluntly and said, “We have multiple neighbours, some are clearly better than others. Hyphenation normally happens with a neighbour who is not so nice.”
He added, “Now, you have to understand when we say de-hyphenation, that means it’s our objective and our approach that decisions made by third countries about us are not made keeping that relationship as the lens or as the factor of calculation or factor of primary calculation. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would accommodate us.”
Jaishankar said that while countries will always try to use situations to their advantage, the only real way for India to “de-hyphenate” from Pakistan is to outstrip it in power and capability. He added that, unlike the 1970s when people often equated India with Pakistan, “nobody talks like that anymore”, even though India cannot wish away a difficult neighbour.
In simpler words, the world no longer assumes India and Pakistan rise or fall together. India has its own track and is now pulling well ahead. This is exactly what India wants to show the world and is doing it perfectly.
India’s booming trade and investment ties with the US
The numbers tell the tale emphatically. According to the US Trade Representative (USTR), total bilateral trade (goods and services) between the US and India was $212.3 billion in 2024. By contrast, US-Pakistan trade barely hit $7.2 billion in 2024. The US exports more to India in a few months than to Pakistan in a year.
India is a top-20 US trading partner overall; Pakistan doesn’t even make that list. Those who say Pakistan and India should be “treated equally” by foreign governments need only look at this gulf. America is interested in India’s market and growth, but Pakistan is merely a blip on its economic radar which is only useful when it wants to project that the US has other “friends” in the region.
Notably, it is not only about trade. Critical sectors show the disparity as well. The US and India have deep ties in tech, defence, energy and education, which bring massive investments. American giants like Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin supply India’s armed forces. Meg Whitman’s Hewlett Packard and Elon Musk’s Tesla invest in Indian manufacturing and infrastructure. Though Trump sees Tesla’s decision to setup manufacturing plant in India as betrayal to the US.
In contrast, trade with Pakistan is mostly limited to military purchases from the US, which only resumed selectively after years of embargo. Recently, there were reports that the US was selling air-to-air missels as a new deal. However, the US has clarified that the media reports were false. Furthermore, Pakistan’s ties with China often make the US twitch.
In the digital realm, India now exports tens of billions of dollars in software and IT services to the US, while Pakistan is still mostly a consumer of software from abroad. In short, India’s relationship with the US is one of mutual market opportunity and strategic alignment, whereas Pakistan’s is purely utility-driven.
India’s rising status is also bolstered by its own growth. New Delhi gets credit for pursuing reforms, attracting foreign capital, and upholding rule-of-law standards. Pakistan, on the other hand, is more often scolded for political instability and human rights issues, making many US investment bankers cautious. Where India is courted as a future leader, Pakistan remains relegated to the security sidelines.
Outpacing, not obsessing – India’s strategy of strength
India’s leadership has consistently urged an India-first focus. The message is that we cannot afford to waste time on futile rivalries when our global opportunities are much larger. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself hammered this point multiple times for years. In 2019, he declared, “We have wasted so much of our time on ‘India-Pakistan, India-Pakistan’. Let Pakistan drown in its own struggles, leave them behind, and let us march ahead.”
This is not just rhetoric. The Indian government’s aim has shifted from keeping the neighbours in the economic trade circle to an India-first approach. The choices India has made in the last decade reflect a strategic choice to focus on India’s strengths.
Economically, India’s GDP and foreign investment inflows are multiples of Pakistan’s. Militarily, India’s budget and capabilities far exceed Pakistan’s. Diplomatically, India’s voice carries weight in forums (UNSC contender, G20 host) where Pakistan barely registers.
The US sees this too. American commentators now speak of “India-Pakistan” as a dated construct. They discuss Indo-Pacific strategy, Quad alliances, and supply chains. India is included; Pakistan is not. The only time Pakistan features in serious US policy today is in counterterrorism or regional stability contexts, often reluctantly.
In contrast, “India” features in trade talks, climate cooperation, technology partnerships and defence dialogues. India’s own doctrine of “strategic autonomy” allows it to partner closely with the US without sacrificing non-aligned choices. Pakistan has no such independent leverage since it depends so heavily on military aid and loans.
India’s push to build world-class digital and economic infrastructure (from AI hubs in Andhra to semiconductor parks in Karnataka) ensures that its relationship with the US is built on mutual advancement. Meanwhile, Pakistan remains locked in dependency on its army’s security aid and occasional Chinese investments, neither of which matches the scale of US tech and capital flowing into India.
Eye on the benefits, not optics
India is all about its own benefit and not about optics. The relations between the US and Pakistan are being carefully choreographed to present it as a strategic partner in South Asia. In reality, Pakistan’s instability is going to hurt the US sooner rather than later.
We should welcome Trump’s warm words for India from time to time and recognise that they reflect America’s appreciation of our progress. Conversely, we should treat Trump’s flattery of Sharif with more than a pinch of salt, which has come because we denied bending to his theatrics.
Pakistan will continue to celebrate any crumbs it gets from US attention, but India is busy forging a partnership that delivers real technology, jobs, and strategic muscle. In geopolitical terms, it is India that will outstrip and outgrow, and this is what India needs and deserves.
News