Washington, April 24 — A sharp policy debate over US strategic priorities in South Asia erupted at the Hudson Institute, with senior officials and analysts clashing over whether Washington can meaningfully engage Pakistan without undermining its deeper, more consequential partnership with India. The discussion, held during the New India Conference, brought together top voices to assess India's expanding global role at a moment of significant geopolitical flux.

Campbell's Unambiguous Stand: India in Capital Letters

Kurt Campbell, former US Deputy Secretary of State, delivered the most direct assessment of the evening. He argued that American strategic interests must be unequivocally anchored in New Delhi, not split between competing South Asian capitals.

"Peace and stability are reinforced… by a closer relationship between the United States and India, and an absolute clarity that all our strategic interests lie in Delhi," Campbell said.

He went further, drawing a stark contrast in how Washington should perceive the two relationships: "The India relationship is in capital letters and Pakistan really doesn't even appear in the paragraph." This framing was notable coming from a former senior State Department official who shaped much of the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific policy.

Ram Madhav Pushes Back Against 'Hyphenation' of India-Pakistan

Ram Madhav, a senior figure associated with India's strategic policy community, echoed frustration over the persistent tendency in Washington to treat India and Pakistan as a paired unit in foreign policy calculations — a practice known as "hyphenation."

"India's relationship is much bigger, much wider… that one should not make," Madhav said, stressing that the two bilateral ties operate at fundamentally different levels of strategic depth, economic weight, and democratic alignment.

This argument is not new — India has long resisted being bracketed with Pakistan in US policy frameworks, particularly since the Civil Nuclear Agreement of 2008 which marked a decisive shift in the US-India relationship. Yet the old reflex persists in some corners of Washington's foreign policy establishment.

Threlkeld Argues for a Non-Zero-Sum Approach

Elizabeth Threlkeld, a South Asia policy analyst, offered a more calibrated counterpoint. She argued that engaging Islamabad does not necessarily come at New Delhi's expense, particularly given Pakistan's potential utility in managing regional crises.

"I genuinely think that there is room for a relationship with both Islamabad and New Delhi," she said, pointing to Pakistan's geographic and diplomatic leverage in ongoing regional flashpoints.

"If Pakistan can leverage the relationships that it has… I think all the better," Threlkeld added, noting that escalation risks in South Asia make managing both bilateral ties a practical necessity rather than a strategic contradiction.

Strategic Ambiguity in Washington Raises Alarm

Campbell acknowledged a deeper concern: that the current uncertainty in Washington's strategic direction — marked by shifting positions on China policy, Middle East dynamics, and Indo-Pacific alliances — is generating anxiety among key partners, including India.

"There are many elements… that are not clear," he said, describing a policy environment defined by "ambiguity" and competing internal views within the US government. This admission is significant — it suggests that even advocates of a strong US-India partnership are concerned that institutional incoherence in Washington could erode the strategic trust New Delhi has placed in the relationship.

The panel also flagged the Middle East conflict and its spillover effects on global supply chains and security calculations as a complicating factor in how Washington allocates diplomatic bandwidth across regions.

Long-Term US Strategy Still Hinges on India

Despite the debate, panelists broadly agreed that the long-term trajectory of US strategy in the Indo-Pacific will be shaped primarily by its partnership with India — not by tactical engagements with Pakistan.

This consensus reflects a structural shift that has been building for over two decades. Since the US-India Civil Nuclear Deal, the Quad's revival in 2017, and the signing of foundational defence agreements like BECA and COMCASA, Washington has systematically deepened its strategic, technological, and defence ties with New Delhi.

Meanwhile, US-Pakistan relations have been repeatedly strained — by Osama bin Laden's discovery in Abbottabad in 2011, by allegations of ISI support for Taliban factions, and most recently by Islamabad's ambiguous posture on Russia's war in Ukraine. The trust deficit is structural, not incidental.

As India prepares to assume greater roles in multilateral frameworks — from the Quad to G20 leadership — the outcome of this debate in Washington will directly shape how much diplomatic capital New Delhi can extract from its partnership with the United States in the years ahead.