No question the first India-US 2+2 dialogue went well. Both sides said so in near-euphoric terms and there is no reason to question the broad sentiment. The US side called the dialogue “historic”, and a “strategic milestone”, the Indian side said it was “a most productive, positive and purposeful meeting”.

The doubts post-Wuhan and Sochi summits that India was fervently hedging were dispelled to some extent. New Delhi was once again able to make nice with everyone at the same time. And that in foreign policy terms is no small feat. India cleverly avoided raising the S-400 issue and whether its decision to buy the Russian system would trigger US sanctions. Why sour the mood? And Washington didn’t either because the sense is that train has already left the station.

At the end of the day, not only the weight of the strategic partnership but the US arms industry should argue for a waiver for India. And the businessman in Donald Trump should respond appropriately. But the process may be murky.

Incidentally, Tina Kaidanow, until recently the State Department’s most vocal advocate for Trump’s new arms sales policy, has moved to the Pentagon to do a similar job. Expect Kaidanow to push harder for a shift towards US systems as she did in May trying to undo the S-400 decision. Now that the 2+2 is over, the leadership has to ensure the many goals in the weighty joint statement translate into concrete actions by working-level bureaucrats.

Not to rain on the parade but a reality check can be helpful as the excitement fades and old problems pop up. By all accounts, the defence partnership is the engine of bilateral ties — the “load-bearing pillar”, to quote Joshua White, a former administration official — just as trade ties have been a retardant.

But how solid is that load-bearing pillar in reality? Insiders say that contradictions, confusion, a mismatch of supply and demand and a lack of clearly defined objectives have restricted progress.

Take the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) — the centrepiece. It is defined as a “flexible mechanism” meant to transform defence relations and strengthen India’s defence industrial base. But the four DTTI objectives are so broad as to make measuring success impossible.

At its last meeting in July, DTTI’s jet engine working group was shut down for lack of progress. They chose to call it a “strategic pause”. Apparently, the divergence between what India wanted and what the US and General Electric were willing to offer was too wide.

It’s obvious that GE will not part with its crown jewel having spent billions in R&D. As someone said, “it’s the one thing the company has”. GE executives saw it as a compromise of their intellectual property to even suggest improvements in an indigenous Indian engine (Kaveri).

Differences also emerged because the US wanted a measure of where India was in terms of indigenous engine technology. India was not keen on open access and benchmarking.

Over time, DTTI has become a game of throwing out random, disparate ideas to see what sticks. May be it’s time to start on a small project, include the private sector and co-produce something and then ramp it up. Better policies will emerge from practical experience of working together even if “you produce a knife”.

And empower the DTTI worker bees to make decisions without everything going through the never-ending process at the ministry of defence. They should be able to decide projects under a certain monetary limit.

Yes, it requires drastic changes in the Indian system but a risk-free process has clear downsides. Things don’t move fast because working-level officers have no power over projects or budgets. And high-level officials don’t have the time.

The US side has its own problems. The service chiefs control a lot of the stuff, including huge amounts of money and even technology. Policymakers are not used to thinking what technology to release to help Make in India succeed.

Believe it or not, the Americans say they are often afraid of offending Indian sensibilities, and don’t ask the hard questions about budgets and requirements they want to. It can make for rehearsed and unproductive meetings.

The systems are very different, as are the ways of thinking, but both sides agree on one thing: the private sector should be front and centre. Technological developments are far too rapid and the need for speed is crucial.