Not really, no. One is a financial commitment, the other is a military commitment. They're very different.
India never courted the West because Pakistan already had close relations with them. The order matters since your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union. US had its own motivations (obviously) around curtailing Soviet influence in Afghanistan.
The U.S. co-producing nuclear submarines with Australia isn’t a military commitment?
> your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union
This was never said? We didn’t ally with India because it was allied with the Soviets. We have no problem allying with both sides of a regional spat e.g. Israel & Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Greece and Japan & Korea.
I mean troop commitment. Will the US send a naval fleet to Australia if the latter is attacked?
You’re kidding, right? Of course we would. (Unless it’s chickenshit business, like Indonesia and Oz getting into a coast guard squabble over migrant boats.)
When you co-produce weapons, you send high-ranking technical advisors and expensive kit that needs guarding. This is why e.g. deploying a ballistic missile radar isn’t just plopping down a radar. It involves deploying troops around it. We have defence treaties with countries whom we don’t trust enough to co-produce with. Co-production is a big deal.
India and Soviet Union had a different kind of co-production deal. It has always been, even to this day with Russia, technology transfer and licensing i.e. you help develop systems and then fully hand over to India. No troop deployment, you're only in it for the money. The BrahMos missile development is the best example of this.
No troops, but certainly Russians. When the “help develop systems” part is in effect, you’re as good as allies.
There are more broken defence treaties than cases of military technology coöperation betrayals. That is why those deals are so closely scrutinised. Treaties promise something in the future. Co-production delivers something today.
Maybe there was foreign policy naïveté in New Delhi at the time. I don’t think so, but perhaps. On the Soviet side, they certainly knew what they were doing.
Sure, I agree with that. But there are different degrees of being allies. "Help develop systems" is nowhere near "risk your own troops to defend another country" (a.k.a. NATO). That's the distinction I'm trying to make.
The Soviets didn’t put boots on the ground, so a similar risk wasn’t present. But one, that wasn’t knowable at the time. And two, there absolutely would have been Russian assets in the vicinity while everyone was learning how to do their jobs.