Elbridge Colby is selling a comfortable lie. The narrative that "America First" and "Bharat First" are two sides of the same realist coin—a harmonious duo of nationalisms dancing against a common Chinese threat—is a fundamental misreading of how power actually works. It assumes that because two nations share a common enemy, their definitions of "realism" will naturally align.
They won't. In fact, the more "realistic" both nations become, the more likely they are to collide. Don't forget to check out our earlier article on this related article.
The current intellectual consensus suggests that transactional foreign policy is the ultimate lubricant for bilateral relations. The logic goes like this: if we stop pretending to care about "shared democratic values" and focus on hard interests, we can finally get down to business. But this ignores the reality that interests are rarely parallel. Realism isn't a bridge; it’s a scoreboard. And in a world of limited resources and shifting hegemonies, someone is always losing.
The Delusion of Strategic Autonomy
India’s "India Way" isn't just about being pragmatic. It is about Strategic Autonomy, a term Western analysts love to quote but refuse to understand. To New Delhi, strategic autonomy means never having to say you’re sorry for buying Russian S-400s or Iranian oil while simultaneously accepting GE jet engine technology from the United States. If you want more about the background here, The Washington Post offers an excellent breakdown.
It is a policy of "multi-alignment," which is really just a polite way of saying "we will take from everyone and owe nothing to anyone."
On the flip side, "America First" is not a call for a global libertarian marketplace of interests. It is an assertive, often protectionist demand for primacy. When Colby speaks of "flexible realism," he is describing a world where the U.S. delegates the heavy lifting of regional security to partners like India so Washington can focus its dwindling resources elsewhere.
Here is the friction point: The U.S. wants a "major defense partner" that acts like an ally but pays like a customer. India wants the technology of an ally with the freedom of a non-aligned state. You cannot have both. The moment India’s "Bharat First" energy needs require a cozy relationship with a U.S. adversary, or "America First" trade barriers hit Indian pharma or IT exports, the "realist" veneer cracks.
Why Your Supply Chain Realism is a Fantasy
Every boardroom from San Jose to Bengaluru is buzzing with "China Plus One." The belief is that India will naturally inherit the manufacturing throne as the U.S. de-risks from Beijing. This is a misunderstanding of the industrial base.
True realism acknowledges that India’s infrastructure and regulatory hurdles aren't just "growing pains." They are structural features of a state that prioritizes domestic protectionism—its own version of "Make in India"—over global integration.
I have watched companies burn through nine-figure budgets trying to force this transition. They mistake India’s massive population for a monolithic market. It isn’t. It’s a collection of highly fragmented markets guarded by a bureaucracy that views foreign capital with a suspicion rooted in centuries of colonial history.
When "America First" demands that jobs return to the Rust Belt, and "Bharat First" demands that every component be forged in Gujarat, the "realist" solution isn't cooperation. It’s a trade war. We are already seeing the opening salvos in disputes over digital service taxes and agricultural subsidies.
The Great Betrayal of the Middle Power
The most dangerous misconception in the Colby doctrine is the idea that India will act as the "net security provider" in the Indian Ocean on behalf of Western interests.
Let’s be brutally honest: India will provide security for India.
If a conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, do not expect the Indian Navy to sail into the South China Sea to pull Washington’s chestnuts out of the fire. Realism dictates that New Delhi will watch, wait, and extract the maximum possible concession from both sides while keeping its own powder dry.
This is the "India Way" in practice. It is S. Jaishankar’s brilliance: maintaining the appearance of a reliable partner while remaining fundamentally unpredictable. To a Washington establishment obsessed with "interoperability," this unpredictability is a bug. To New Delhi, it is the primary feature.
The "Values" Trap
We are told that moving away from "liberal internationalism" toward "realism" makes the relationship more stable. The argument is that by removing the "annoyance" of human rights discussions or democratic backsliding, we focus on the "real" stuff—missiles and trade.
This is a tactical error.
Values were never just "fluff." They were the social contract that allowed the U.S. Congress to approve high-tech transfers to a non-treaty ally. Without the "shared values" lubricant, India is just another transactional state. And in a purely transactional world, there is always a better deal elsewhere.
If Russia offers cheaper energy and better tech transfer on nuclear subs, a "Bharat First" policy takes it. If the U.S. finds that Vietnam or Mexico offers a more compliant labor force and fewer geopolitical headaches, "America First" moves the capital.
Stop Asking if They Are Aligned
The question "Are the U.S. and India aligned?" is the wrong question. It’s a binary trap for amateur pundits.
The real question is: "How much friction can this relationship survive before the transaction costs exceed the strategic benefits?"
We are entering an era of Competitive Cooperation. It is a high-stakes game where both players are constantly trying to outsource their risks to the other while hoarding the rewards.
If you are a CEO or a policy architect, stop planning for a "seamless" partnership. Start planning for a series of grueling, one-off negotiations where every inch of progress is traded for a pound of flesh.
The "India Way" is not a path toward the American vision of the Indo-Pacific. It is a path toward an Indian-centric world where the U.S. is just one of many poles. If you think "America First" is going to be okay with that, you haven't been paying attention to the last decade of American politics.
The reality of this "realist" era is not a grand alliance. It is a messy, uncomfortable, and frequently hostile marriage of convenience where both parties are already looking for the exit strategy.
Accept that the friction is not a mistake—it is the destination.
Stop looking for "synergy" and start calculating the cost of the inevitable fallout.
Shop for a new map. The old one, where New Delhi and Washington march in lockstep against the "Red Menace," was burned years ago. You’re just now noticing the smoke.
