• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "C. Raja Mohan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie India"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "India"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie India

Modi and Obama’s War

Although both the United States and India see terrorism as a great threat to their societies, they have different priorities in the war against it.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Oct 1, 2014
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

Source: Indian Express

Will he or won’t he? As Prime Minister Narendra Modi wraps up his visit to the United States in Washington, there has been much speculation on whether New Delhi might join President Barack Obama’s renewed war on terror in the Middle East, this time focused on the Islamic State (IS).

All those looking for the “Obama-twists-Modi’s-arms” narrative — a long tradition in Indian media coverage of relations with America — have focused on what the prime minister might say on the latest turn of events in the Middle East and India’s approach to the international coalition that Obama is trying to put together against the IS.

Modi did not give away much. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly and the talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Modi condemned terrorism as a great challenge for humanity as a whole and insisted that it can be defeated only through collective action. In a vision statement issued after their dinner meeting at the White House on Monday, Modi and Obama declared “together, we will combat terrorist threats and keep our homelands and citizens safe from attacks”. Delightfully vague again; for clarity, sometimes, is the enemy of sensible diplomacy.

Contrary to the “pressure theory”, there was no expectation in official Washington that India will become a major element of the international coalition against the IS. Even limited support from India, diplomatic and rhetorical, would be welcome in Washington. Realists in both countries know that the success or failure of the campaign against the IS will depend on the political dynamic in the Middle East and on the shifting equations between Washington and different regional players in the region, especially Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.

Double Standards

In his public remarks, Modi touched on India’s traditional concerns about international double standards on terrorism. He pointed to the fact that only when a country is directly affected by terrorism is it prepared to appreciate the kind of challenge that violent extremism poses.

Modi’s reference to shifting American attitudes towards terrorism is equally applicable to India. Delhi used to dismiss Western concerns on terrorism in the Middle East during the 1970s. India’s line then was pretty simple: solve the dispute between Israel and Arabs and terrorism would simply disappear. Much like those in Pakistan who say terrorism will cease if India allows “self-determination” in Jammu and Kashmir. It was only when India’s own house was on fire, starting from the 1980s, that Delhi started getting more serious about international terrorism. But even today, India is not as vocal about terrorism in the Middle East and the support for it from some of Delhi’s friends in the region. Official India tends to talk largely about Pakistan and its support of cross-border terrorism.

There are some in Delhi’s foreign policy establishment who say that the policies of the US and its allies have led to the rise of the IS; therefore, India should have nothing to do with the war against the IS. This is a mirror image of the argument in Washington that says that Delhi’s policies have boosted terrorism in the subcontinent and asks why America should bother to cooperate with India. Modi and Obama, fortunately, are not so myopic.

Different Strokes

The real issue is not about double standards on terrorism. Nor is hypocrisy a monopoly of either America or India. The problem is different. Although both America and India see terrorism as a great threat to their societies, they have different priorities in the war against it.

Since the 1990s, Washington’s main target has been al-Qaeda and now the IS. For Delhi, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and other anti-India terror groups based in Pakistan are of prime concern. Yet India and the US are beginning to discover that these terror groups do not operate in isolation from each other and have deep interconnections. The US is no longer immune from threats from South Asian groups like the LeT. Nor can India turn a blind eye to the rise of the IS and its impact on Delhi’s growing interests in the Middle East. Delhi is also concerned about how the IS might influence extremist groups in India.

There is huge scope, then, for a significant expansion of India-US bilateral cooperation on terrorism, despite their different priorities. Since the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai, there has been a steady growth in the engagement between the intelligence and security establishments of the two countries. All indications are that Modi and Obama will elevate this to a more productive level.

This article was originally published in the Indian Express.

About the Author

C. Raja Mohan

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India

A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership

      C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +1

      Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
SecurityForeign PolicySouth AsiaIndia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • A boat, with smoke in the background
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Gulf Monarchies Are Caught Between Iran’s Desperation and the U.S.’s Recklessness

    Only collective security can protect fragile economic models.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber

  • Commentary
    Sada
    Duqm at the Crossroads: Oman’s Strategic Port and Its Role in Vision 2040

    In a volatile Middle East, the Omani port of Duqm offers stability, neutrality, and opportunity. Could this hidden port become the ultimate safe harbor for global trade?

      Giorgio Cafiero, Samuel Ramani

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe on Iran: Gone with the Wind

    Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.

      Pierre Vimont

  • Commentary
    India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

    On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Forbidden City on a cloudy day
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows Why

    Arguing that Chinese policy is hung on alliances—with imputations of obligation—misses the point. 

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.