Friendship, national self-respect and the independence of India’s foreign policy. Surrendering one’s national interest is not the price of friendship.

The identity of a country’s foreign policy is not determined by how cordial its relations are with powerful nations. Its true character emerges when it must choose between its own interests and the expectations of a friendly country. Does it make decisions independently, guided by its own judgment, or does it alter its priorities to avoid displeasing another nation? This is the question that deserves serious consideration in the context of India–US relations today.

India and the United States have considerable scope for cooperation in trade, defence, science, technology, education and energy. Strong relations between the two countries can create new opportunities for India’s development and enhance its global standing. However, the value of such cooperation must be assessed through a fundamental distinction: friendship and dependence are not interchangeable.

In a friendship, both sides retain their identities and independence. Under conditions of dependence, one side’s priorities can begin to influence the decisions of the other. It is therefore legitimate to ask how much importance India–US engagement gives to India’s own interests, independent decision-making and long-term requirements.

The title, Why Should India Become a Follower of the United States?, is not intended to foster hostility towards any country. Its purpose is to initiate a serious debate about the direction of Indian foreign policy. There should be nothing objectionable about India becoming a friend of the United States. Concern arises only when friendship begins to impose conditions that limit India’s independence.

Kennedy’s Message and Its Relevance for India: On January 20, 1961, while taking the oath of office as President of the United States, John F. Kennedy told his fellow Americans: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

The message encouraged citizens not merely to expect benefits from the state but also to recognise their responsibilities and their role in nation-building.

In the Indian context, the relevance of this idea lies not in imitating American policies but in giving priority to public duty, accountability and national interest. Applying Kennedy’s message to Indian circumstances would mean that citizens, elected representatives, civil servants, teachers and institutions must discharge their respective responsibilities honestly.

It is equally important to distinguish between drawing inspiration from the ideas of a historical leader and accepting every aspect of that leader’s policies. India must chart its own course on the basis of its democratic traditions, Constitution, civilisational experience and social needs. Learning from other countries is a sign of wisdom, but imitating them without considering India’s own circumstances cannot be regarded as sound policymaking.

Strong Relations with America, but Decisions Must Be India’s Own

The economic strength, scientific achievements and technological resources of the United States make it an important participant in the international system. Cooperation with Washington offers India several practical advantages. Partnerships in defence production, access to advanced technologies, research, investment, space science and finance can benefit both countries.

However, a partnership should not be evaluated solely on the basis of political appearances or public declarations. The more important questions are whether it enhances India’s productive capacity, benefits Indian industry, facilitates meaningful technology transfer and strengthens national security.

India’s circumstances differ considerably from those of the United States. Its energy requirements, relations with neighbouring countries, development priorities and social challenges have their own distinctive characteristics. Consequently, India cannot determine its position on an international dispute merely by asking what Washington wants.

If American policies align with Indian interests, cooperation is entirely reasonable. If the interests of the two countries diverge, India must retain the full right to articulate and defend its position. Differences of opinion do not signify the failure of friendship; an inability to express those differences can weaken a partnership. The purpose of diplomacy is not to secure agreement in every situation. It is to keep channels of cooperation open while preserving the freedom to disagree.

Strategic Autonomy: The Practical Foundation of an Independent Foreign Policy

Strategic autonomy in Indian foreign policy means retaining the capacity to make independent decisions in international affairs. It does not require India to distance itself from the United States, Europe or any other major power, nor does it mean viewing every relationship through the prism of opposition.

India’s challenge is to preserve a broad range of options in an evolving international order. Excessive dependence on any single country for trade, energy or critical technologies could create difficulties in the future. By contrast, diversified partnerships strengthen India’s bargaining power and reduce the risks arising from decisions taken elsewhere.

The balance between self-reliance and international cooperation is equally important. Self-reliance does not mean isolation from the global economy. In the modern world, countries are interconnected through resources, markets, capital and technological capabilities. What matters is that India continually strengthens its own capabilities and freedom of decision-making within these relationships.

Before accepting any agreement, India should carefully assess its economic benefits, financial costs, technological conditions, security implications and long-term consequences. Decisions based on a comprehensive evaluation of these factors, rather than ideological enthusiasm or opposition, reflect a practical commitment to national interest. A confident nation makes decisions on the basis of evidence, careful judgment and outcomes—not reflexive support or opposition.

The Real Test of National Self-Respect Lies Within the Country

National self-respect is not established merely through speeches delivered on international platforms. A country’s actual strength is reflected in its educational institutions, where new ideas are generated; its universities, where independent thinking is encouraged; its industries, which create employment and innovation; and its institutions, where rules are implemented fairly and without discrimination.

If India must continually depend on external assistance for critical technologies, its strategic freedom may be constrained. If research receives inadequate investment, talented young people lack opportunities and industries do not enjoy an environment conducive to innovation, the objective of self-reliance will remain incomplete.

For this reason, national capacity cannot be separated from foreign policy. Investment in scientific research, higher education, modern manufacturing, public infrastructure and quality skill development also strengthens India’s international standing.

Administrative transparency and institutional accountability are equally important. Public money must be used in accordance with established rules, through fair procedures and with measurable outcomes. Public confidence in institutions will grow when these principles are consistently upheld, enabling the country to realise its collective potential.

The real meaning of an Atmanirbhar Bharat is that India should move forward alongside the world while developing the capabilities necessary to meet its own needs and make critical decisions independently.

Citizens’ Duties and Their Right to Question the Government

Applying Kennedy’s message to Indian democracy also means recognising that nation-building cannot be left entirely to the government. Citizens must understand their own responsibilities. A teacher’s honest dedication to education, a scientist’s commitment to research, an entrepreneur’s creation of employment, an employee’s sense of duty and a citizen’s respect for public property all contribute to national progress.

However, a discussion of civic responsibility must not come at the expense of democratic rights. Questioning the government, examining its policies and demanding transparency in administration are essential elements of democratic life.

Patriotism does not require citizens to agree with every government decision. Disagreement is necessary in a democracy because criticism often brings policy shortcomings to light. Reasoned debate can help both the government and society make better decisions.

Similarly, raising questions about India’s relations with a foreign country does not automatically amount to hostility towards that country. India–US relations should be assessed through the same objective framework: do the policies being pursued advance India’s security, economic development and the interests of its citizens?

A constructive and informed national debate, supported by honest institutions and responsible citizens, is a more reliable foundation for protecting national interests than emotional rhetoric.

The Mark of Leadership: Sound Decisions Even Under Pressure

Leaders of every country frequently face situations in which immediate political advantages appear to conflict with long-term national interests. At such moments, their responsibility is not merely to produce popular reactions but to make decisions based on available evidence and their likely consequences.

This is particularly important for a large democracy like India. Closeness to a powerful country cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of diplomatic success. Equally, a public disagreement with another country should not automatically be regarded as the ultimate demonstration of independence.

The success of a decision must be assessed by asking whether it has strengthened India’s security, expanded economic opportunities, improved access to new technologies and protected the country’s long-term capacity to make independent decisions.

The leadership must explain and justify its decisions to the public. Policy consistency, strong institutions and accountability enhance a country’s credibility. Confidence in foreign policy can be sustained only when it rests on economic strength, social well-being and institutional resilience.

India Must Build Partnerships on Its Own Terms

The future of India–US relations offers considerable opportunities for cooperation. The two countries can work together in defence, education, technology, security and addressing global challenges. However, this cooperation must evolve in a direction that allows India to articulate its interests and priorities clearly.

India neither needs to oppose every American initiative nor support every American decision. On every issue, it must independently assess its national interests, the available evidence and the long-term consequences of the choices before it.

India can draw inspiration from John F. Kennedy’s ideas on civic responsibility, public service and accountable governance. Those ideas, however, must be adapted to the needs of Indian society and the country’s constitutional values. Every nation’s path to progress is shaped by its own circumstances, capabilities and the aspirations of its people.

Ultimately, the question is not whether India is close to or distant from the United States. The real question is how far this relationship strengthens India’s security, prosperity, technological capabilities and freedom to make independent decisions.

Friendship is meaningful when it is founded on mutual respect. Partnership endures when it delivers reciprocal benefits. And foreign policy is effective when the national interest remains at its core.

India must move forward with the world, but it must determine its own direction. That is the practical meaning of national self-respect—and the most important lesson India can draw from Kennedy’s message.

(Author is a Professor at the Department of Hindi, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi.)