IT has become quite the fashion these days to characterise even the semblance of good relations as 'strategic ties'. Nevertheless, the US-India strategic dialogue that took place recently in Washington, certainly deserves this appellation.

It came in the wake of India's ill-disguised misgivings about the 'strategic dialogues' that the US recently had with China and Pakistan.

Keen to assuage India's 'hurt' feelings, US leaders engaged in more than the usual rhetoric. President Obama also chose to break with protocol to turn up at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reception for Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, where he announced that he would undertake an official visit to India in November. He then chose to speak of his ambitions, which if it materialises, will take US-India relations to unprecedented heights. US officials also pointed to the administration's National Security Strategy, which while welcoming a China “that takes on a responsible leadership role in working with the US and international community”, makes it clear that the US “will monitor China's military modernisation programme and prepare accordingly to ensure that US interests and allies regionally and globally are not affected”.

India, on the other hand, receives a positive reference “US and India are building a strategic partnership that is underpinned by our shared influence, our shared values”, while emphasising that “India's responsible advancement serves as a positive example for developing nations”.

The Indo-US strategic dialogue covered a wide gamut of issues that included terrorism, disarmament, trade, science, technology and civil nuclear cooperation. On the two crucial issues, terrorism and Afghanistan, the joint statement spoke of US commitment to continued support for ongoing counter-terrorism investigation. It also welcomed India's contribution to reconstruction and development efforts in Afghanistan. Washington undertook to regularly consult Delhi on Afghanistan.

As regards India's desire to have a role in training and capacity-building for Afghan security forces, there was no definite outcome.

India asked for further liberalisation of US export laws that restrict the sales of crucial military technology and lifting of restrictions on a number of Indian organisations. The US wish list includes the nuclear liability bill, access to Indian military bases and a bigger share of the Indian market for American goods and services including military sales and nuclear commerce.

Not surprisingly, Pakistan hovered in the background. Assistant Secretary Robert Blake placed Pakistan in the context of the US desire to promote peace in South Asia, though making the preposterous claim that India had not objected to the sale of US weapon systems to Pakistan.

India chose to imply, with little effort at disguise, Pakistan's involvement in terrorism, drawing attention to the fact that while “the epicentre of this threat lies in India's neighbourhood, it reaches far and wide all across the globe”. At the same time, the Indian foreign minister said that India was seeking “a future of peace and cooperation with Pakistan”.

That India resents the Obama administration's desire to forge strategic ties with China and Pakistan is well-known. The Indians claim that while they are a peaceful nation, China has extra-territorial ambitions, oblivious to how their own neighbours view them. Pakistan, it simply rejects, as both a terrorist-sponsoring state and not one to be considered in the same league as India.

The Indians also used the dialogue to seek greater clarity on Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, especially concerning the emerging reconciliation plans with the Taliban. Earlier, it had conveyed its unhappiness with the US administration's suggestion that India show greater sensitivity to Pakistan's concerns in Afghanistan. It reacted strongly to a leaked memo of Gen McChrystal that “increasing Indian influence is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India”.

New Delhi has publicly expressed fears that Pakistan is being given far too great a role in determining US strategy in Afghanistan. It has rejected the growing consensus in Washington that acknowledges Pakistan's indispensable role in the success of US plans for Afghanistan, which led Assistant Secretary Blake to snub an Indian journalist who accused the administration of having a pro-Pakistan tilt.The two countries also held an extensive exchange on Iran, which encouraged US officials to claim that New Delhi would support any action against Tehran when it came to sanctions, while acknowledging India's refusal to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically.

The issue of Security Council reforms and India's aspiration for permanent membership of this exclusive club also came up during the Washington meeting. On its eve, Under Secretary William Burns had confirmed that India's expanding global role would make it an important part of any future consideration of Security Council reforms. Ms Clinton went even further when she reiterated that the US was committed to considering India for the UNSC. But it was Blake's remark that Obama was looking to achieve “ambitious results” during his visit to Delhi that led to speculation in India that he would be coming with “glad tidings”.

If during his visit to Delhi, Obama were to 'gift' a UNSC seat, it would definitely be a huge success for India in getting two of its fondest wishes fulfilled in five years. First, in getting the civilian nuclear deal from Bush, without having signed the NPT and then entering the ranks of the Security Council, which is becoming increasingly the vehicle for great powers to achieve their national goals — all this without having resolved the Kashmir issue or differences with its neighbours.

The US has to ask itself whether this will promote peace in the region. The US must not forget that however much it may claim that US relations with India and Pakistan are no longer a zero-sum game, the reality is far more nuanced. Pakistan, for all its shortcomings, remains a critical player in the region and the US would do well not to ignore this.