Why Does the U.S. Still Support Pakistan Over India? The Truth Will Shock You

Why Does the U.S. Still Support Pakistan Over India? A Strategic Reality Check

In global geopolitics, moral values often take a back seat to strategic interests. One of the most compelling examples of this contradiction is the United States’ continued engagement with Pakistan — a nation fraught with political instability, economic collapse, and a controversial past — even as India, the world’s largest democracy and a rising economic power, finds itself occasionally sidelined in Washington’s policy corridors.

This isn’t about favoritism or ideology. It’s about utility.

Understanding U.S. Foreign Policy: Interests Over Ideals

The foundation of American foreign policy, much like any superpower’s strategy, is not built on loyalty or shared democratic values — it is shaped by self-interest. The U.S. does not form friendships in the traditional sense. It forms partnerships that advance its global agenda.

In this context, Pakistan, despite its many internal challenges, offers specific advantages that India currently does not, especially in terms of geography, military logistics, and regional access. These factors have kept Pakistan relevant in U.S. strategy, particularly in South Asia and the Middle East.

Geography: Pakistan’s Strategic Advantage

One of Pakistan’s greatest strengths is its location. It shares borders with three crucial regions for U.S. interests: Afghanistan, Iran, and China's Xinjiang province. This makes it a valuable player in military logistics, surveillance, and regional intelligence gathering.

During the war on terror, Pakistan allowed the U.S. access to its airspace, provided NATO supply routes, and facilitated key military and intelligence operations. Even though Pakistan was simultaneously accused of harboring extremist elements, its geographical positioning made it indispensable. In geopolitics, proximity often trumps principles.

India, on the other hand, although it shares a sensitive border with China and possesses extensive maritime influence in the Indian Ocean, is not inclined to allow foreign troops on its soil or become a launchpad for Western military operations. This strict adherence to sovereignty, while respectable, limits India's strategic flexibility in the eyes of the U.S.

Independence vs. Compliance: The Policy Dilemma

India is a proud, independent democracy. It maintains a balanced foreign policy, engages with multiple global powers including Russia and Iran, and resists being pulled into binary alliances. It has refused to condemn nations under Western command, continued energy trade with Moscow during sanctions, and promotes a multipolar world order.

While this makes India a responsible and sovereign global actor, it also makes it less predictable and controllable. From the perspective of U.S. policymakers, India’s autonomy is a double-edged sword — admirable, but inconvenient in high-stakes strategic scenarios.

In contrast, Pakistan tends to be more pliable. It frequently aligns with U.S. requests, provides access and cooperation when needed, and supports American initiatives in the UN or on the ground. This makes it a more manageable, albeit less reliable, partner in real-time operations.

The China Factor: Why Pakistan Still Matters

Much of America’s foreign policy in Asia today revolves around countering China's rising influence. This includes containing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and maintaining a presence near sensitive Chinese regions. Pakistan is a central node in China’s ambitious China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and connects to the Arabian Sea via Gwadar Port. 

To the U.S., this poses a significant geopolitical challenge. Maintaining leverage in Pakistan allows the U.S. to monitor China's western flank and respond to developments near Xinjiang, a region central to Chinese internal security. Therefore, supporting Pakistan is not an endorsement of its policies, but a move to counterbalance China’s expanding reach.

Defense Economy and Arms Diplomacy

Another critical component of U.S. support for Pakistan is military economics.

Pakistan has historically been a consistent buyer of American weapons systems, including F-16 fighter jets and surveillance equipment. These deals create a technical dependency, ensuring ongoing collaboration through maintenance contracts, software support, training, and operational compatibility. In return, the U.S. gains access and influence.

India, by contrast, is pushing for defense self-reliance through its "Make in India" initiative and "Atmanirbhar Bharat" strategy. While this is a smart move for national sovereignty, it reduces India’s dependency on American defense companies, thus diminishing its leverage in Washington’s defense economy.

The Double Standards of Strategic Alliances

There is a persistent contradiction in the U.S. approach: while it champions democracy and human rights, it continues to support regimes or states that contradict those very values when it serves a larger strategic purpose.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan have all received military aid or arms deals despite questionable human rights records or inconsistent democratic practices. This reveals the core truth of realpolitik — the cold, calculated game of influence where utility often overshadows ethics.

Where Does This Leave India?

India finds itself in a paradox. It is globally respected for its democratic values, economic growth, and foreign policy independence. Yet, in moments of geopolitical urgency, it is not always the U.S.'s first call. Why? Because in the strategic matrix, compliance often outweighs capability.

But this can change.

India's Path Forward: From Respect to Relevance

India must not abandon its principles — instead, it should package its independence as a strategic asset, not just a moral stance. Here’s how:

1. Leverage Maritime Strength: India dominates the Indian Ocean, a crucial maritime corridor in the Indo-Pacific. It should use this to enhance its value in countering Chinese naval expansion.

2. Geostrategic Signaling: Instead of just remaining neutral, India can project its presence in sensitive regions — from Southeast Asia to the Middle East — as a stabilizing force.

3. Smart Defense Engagement: While continuing its push for self-reliance, India can structure joint defense ventures that align with U.S. interests without compromising sovereignty.

4. Strategic Communication: India must redefine its narrative — not just as a principled democracy but as a necessary partner for global stability.

Final Thoughts: Utility Over Morality

In the arena of international politics, being respected is important, but being indispensable is what drives decisions. Until India effectively transforms its strategic strengths into clear leverage — particularly in areas where the U.S. is seeking dependable support — it will continue to be respected but not prioritized.

America’s continued engagement with Pakistan is not about favoritism or trust. It’s about geopolitical access, military logistics, and regional leverage. Until India presents itself as not just an alternative but as a more pragmatic and strategically aligned partner, the current imbalance will persist.

In conclusion, the future of India-U.S. relations depends not on moral alignment but mutual strategic benefit. And for India, that means shifting from being the world’s conscience to becoming the world’s cornerstone in a new era of great-power competition.