The US is back to its old divide-and-rule tricks in South Asia after criticizing both India and Pakistan on the exact same day. Following the 2+2 talks between the US and India on Monday, which came a day after former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was removed from office by what he described as a US-orchestrated regime change but which the replacement authorities insist was a perfectly legal process, Secretary of State Blinken issued two curious statements. He and his Indian counterpart Jaishankar released a joint statement that “called on Pakistan to take immediate, sustained, and irreversible action to ensure that no territory under its control is used for terrorist attacks.” The US’ top diplomat, however, then criticized India for its human rights abuses in a move that was very well received by many Pakistanis.

Both American statements elicited official responses from their targeted governments. Pakistan’s Foreign Office condemned what it described as the US’ “unwarranted reference” to it while Minister of External Affairs Jaishankar gave the US a dose of its own medicine by expressing concern a few days later about the human rights situation in that country, especially involving the Indian community there. On the surface, the US might have been trying to present a so-called “balanced approach” to the region but there’s more to it in the strategic sense than just that if one digs a bit deeper below the surface. What’s actually happening is that US saw an opportunity to return to meddling in regional affairs following two recent developments: the reaffirmation of the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership and the change of government in Pakistan.

The first-mentioned has become the primary irritant nowadays in Indian-American relations while the second was likely interpreted by the US as a chance to restore some of its lost influence with its traditional regional partner. Prior to the latest change of government in Pakistan, both South Asian powers practiced a policy of principled neutrality towards Russia’s ongoing special military operation in Ukraine. It remains to be seen whether Islamabad will continue doing so following the change in government that former Prime Minister Khan said was supported by the US as punishment for his independent foreign policy and especially that which he practiced towards Russia in recent years, but the lack of clarity surrounding this given the scandalous international circumstances in which it happened means that it can’t be discounted at this time that this policy might change (even gradually).

From an American strategic perspective, this is a chance to try to pit India and Pakistan against one another with the expectation that they’ll compete to obtain favors – or at least a relief in pressure – from the US that Washington can then leverage to advance its regional interests. Those said interests are to reassert its declining influence in South Asia by re-establishing a regional foothold from which to remain relevant. Prior to the Ukrainian Conflict, the US expected that India would serve this role due to their shared interests in “containing” China, but New Delhi then bravely defied Washington’s pressure to distance itself from Moscow due to that country’s grand strategic goal of maintaining the balance of influence in Eurasia by preemptively preventing Russia’s potentially disproportionate dependence on China in the event that the People’s Republic was the only valve for it from Western pressure.

Prior to last weekend’s controversial change of government in Pakistan, that country’s former leadership was at increasing odds with America over a multitude of issues and therefore couldn’t realistically serve as the regional platform that the US needs to reassert its declining influence in South Asia. The political process that just unfolded there, however, suddenly restored the chances of that possibly happening considering the scandalous international circumstances in which it transpired regarding the former premier’s claim that it was actually a US-orchestrated regime change. This strategic context might have influenced Blinken to audaciously criticize India’s human rights situation while speaking with Jaishankar in his very presence, knowing very well how positively this would be perceived among Pakistanis and especially their country’s new civilian leadership.

In order to not recklessly put all its strategic eggs in the Pakistani basket prior to achieving some tangible dividends from this gambit, Blinken thought that he’d also “balance” out this policy by condemning that country in the US’ joint statement with India in order to hedge against the failure of its latest implied outreach to Islamabad. On paper, this is a sensible policy, but it actually served to be counterproductive in practice. That’s because the goodwill that was on display during the 2+2 talks with India instantly evaporated after Blinken so audaciously criticized what’s among the most sensitive of India’s many domestic issues. The hope that the US might have of quickly repairing relations with Pakistan also disappeared after Washington guaranteed that Islamabad would condemn its joint statement with India, which also served as an attempt from its new government to dispel claims that it’s a US puppet.

India’s failure to respond to such an unprovoked information attack against it over this ultra-sensitive issue would have provoked widespread anger in society and claims that the government was selling out its national interests to a foreign party in exchange for nothing at all. Likewise, Pakistan’s failure to respond to a similar such unprovoked information attack against it over its own ultra-sensitive issue would have provoked the same and resulted in similar accusations that it also sold out to a foreign party without getting anything in return. Neither South Asian state could accept those extremely counterproductive socio-political consequences, especially not when both of their people are closely monitoring their governments’ ties with the US in the context of American pressure on both of them for their principled neutrality towards Russia.

Nevertheless, an emerging trend has thus become discernable, and it’s that the US is once again trying to play India and Pakistan off against each other as was earlier explained in pursuit of its own interest in reasserting regional influence through one or the other. The problem, however, is that this superficially “balanced” approach is perceived with intense skepticism from both. Instead of picking a side and doubling down on its efforts to appeal to them, which would naturally entail some difficult compromises that the US might not feel comfortable with such as stopping its information warfare against India in response to its principled neutrality towards Russia or providing urgent no-strings-attached aid to Pakistan to help its new authorities rejuvenate their struggling economy, it’s clumsily practicing an obvious divide-and-rule strategy that’s counterproductively exposed its self-interested intentions.