A little Love Story - Trump-Modi Tariff Game

India’s Strategic Autonomy under Trump’s Tariff Regime: Multipolar Equilibria and Indo–Russian Continuities

---

Abstract

This article evaluates the reported Modi–Trump tariff understanding within the deeper historical and structural architecture of India’s foreign policy. It argues that tariff diplomacy cannot be interpreted in isolation from India’s long-standing strategic autonomy doctrine, its foundational security relationship with Russia, and the multipolar constraints imposed by the United States–China rivalry. Drawing on game-theoretic frameworks—particularly the repeated prisoner’s dilemma and Nash equilibrium reasoning—the article demonstrates that India’s multi-alignment is not indecision but equilibrium behaviour under conditions of coercive economic statecraft. The persistence of Indo–Russian ties is further anchored in energy security imperatives, sanctions resistance, and Russia’s historical diplomatic insurance on Kashmir. The Modi–Trump tariff episode is thus best understood as a tactical bargaining round rather than a decisive geopolitical pivot.

---

Introduction

Recent claims surrounding a tariff adjustment between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump have generated considerable speculation regarding India’s strategic orientation. Trump’s assertion that India would curtail Russian oil purchases in exchange for tariff reductions suggests an attempt to convert trade diplomacy into an alignment mechanism. Yet India’s foreign policy history reveals that sovereignty preservation, energy realism, and strategic autonomy cannot be overridden by marginal transactional concessions.

This article situates the Modi–Trump tariff episode within India’s deeper geopolitical posture, demonstrating that multi-alignment remains India’s dominant equilibrium strategy in an increasingly fragmented multipolar order. The argument proceeds by locating tariff diplomacy within India’s historical memory of Indo–Russian security guarantees, its contemporary energy constraints, and the systemic pressures produced by great-power rivalry in Eurasia.

---

Tariff diplomacy and coercive alignment

The announcement of tariff reductions between Modi and Trump must be understood not merely as a commercial adjustment, but as a significant moment in the evolving geopolitical contest over India’s autonomy. Any suggestion that India might exchange decades of strategic partnership with Russia for a seven-percentage-point tariff concession requires contextualisation within the deeper historical structure of Indo–Russian relations.

India’s relationship with Moscow is not reducible to energy imports. The Soviet Union repeatedly vetoed Western-backed UN resolutions on Kashmir, shielding India from the internationalisation of its most existential sovereignty dispute. Such diplomatic insurance cannot be purchased through short-term tariff relief.

The legacy of the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War further reinforces India’s caution toward American coercion. The deployment of the US Seventh Fleet toward the Bay of Bengal was perceived as intimidation, while Soviet signalling served as India’s strategic counterweight. These historical episodes are not merely archival; they remain embedded within Indian strategic culture as reminders of the conditional nature of American partnership.

The tariff episode thus reflects a broader pattern: Washington seeks alignment through conditional market access, while India seeks tactical economic gains without surrendering strategic autonomy. The broader diplomatic context also reveals the limits of spectacle-driven partnership, as symbolic events such as the “Howdy Modi” rally and Ahmedabad summit optics failed to prevent repeated US tariff defection, underscoring the transactional rather than reciprocal nature of Trump-era engagement.

---

Strategic autonomy and repeated-game bargaining

The Modi–Trump tariff episode can be formalised through the framework of repeated strategic interaction, most usefully modelled as a variant of the repeated prisoner’s dilemma under asymmetric leverage. In such settings, economic rewards and coercive threats operate not as isolated events but as iterative bargaining moves within a longer geopolitical game.

A more rigorous representation of this interaction is provided by the 2×2 payoff structure of the US–India tariff game, in which both actors may either cooperate (maintaining open trade with low tariffs) or defect (escalating tariffs or retaliating). Under mutual cooperation, the outcome is one of shared gains. By contrast, persistent US defection while India continues cooperation produces an asymmetric payoff in which India suffers economic loss while Washington accrues leverage.

Table 1. U.S.–India Tariff Interaction Payoff Structure (adapted from Deman 2026)

	India Cooperate	India Defects
US Cooperate	(4,  4)	(1, 5)
US Defects	(5, 1)	(2, 2)

The United States has repeatedly used tariffs as punishment mechanisms designed to induce compliance. For India, however, cooperation must remain conditional, since abandoning Russia or refusing retaliation represents an irreversible weakening of its long-term strategic insurance position.

India therefore pursues calibrated accommodation: signalling limited cooperation to extract short-term trade benefit while retaining autonomy to resist escalation. Russia’s presence as an alternative partner alters the payoff structure, preventing Washington from enforcing monopolistic discipline.

As the Folk Theorem suggests, sustained cooperation in repeated games is only stable when credible punishment strategies exist. India’s relative passivity in the 2017–2020 tariff cycle weakened its bargaining leverage by allowing repeated US defection without proportional countermeasures. In such a structure, strategic autonomy requires not only rhetorical non-alignment but enforceable bargaining credibility.

---

Multi-alignment as equilibrium under multipolarity

India’s foreign policy posture is increasingly best conceptualised as equilibrium behaviour within an emerging multipolar system. Full alignment with the United States would intensify Chinese hostility and weaken Russian counterweight insurance; full alignment with Russia would constrain access to Western technology and capital.

India thus occupies a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium: selective cooperation distributed across competing poles to prevent domination by any single actor. This equilibrium reflects the strategic logic of autonomy maximisation under multipolar constraints.

Participation in BRICS and rupee-denominated trade mechanisms reflects institutional diversification aimed at reducing vulnerability to dollar-based sanction architectures. The Modi–Trump tariff episode represents one bargaining round within this broader equilibrium process rather than a decisive pivot.

---

Energy security and sanctions resistance

Indo–Russian continuity is increasingly anchored in energy realism. India is one of the world’s largest oil importers, and energy security is inseparable from national security. Energy dependence imposes structural constraints that cannot be displaced through short-term trade concessions.

Western sanction regimes seek to weaponise interdependence by transforming access to financial and settlement systems into coercive tools. India’s refusal to subordinate its energy needs to Western priorities reflects the limits of such coercion when applied to major emerging powers.

Russian crude offers price competitiveness, reliability, and transactional flexibility—including partial rupee-based settlement arrangements. Tariff concessions cannot compensate for the structural imperatives of energy survival. Oil therefore functions as structural ballast stabilising Indo–Russian relations against episodic US economic pressure.

---

Kashmir, sovereignty, and Russian diplomatic insurance

The Kashmir dispute remains central to India’s sovereignty consciousness. Soviet vetoes at the UN Security Council prevented Western-backed internationalisation efforts, preserving India’s preferred bilateral framing. Sovereignty preservation has therefore remained an existential organising principle of Indian diplomacy.

By contrast, America’s historic alignment with Pakistan produced enduring Indian scepticism regarding US neutrality on sovereignty questions. Kashmir thus serves as a reminder that Indo–Russian ties rest on institutional reassurance, not ideology.

India cannot rationally exchange such diplomatic insurance for marginal tariff relief. Sovereignty preservation ensures that Indo–Russian continuity remains a durable component of India’s equilibrium strategy.

---

BRICS expansion and the decline of Western economic discipline

The endurance of India’s multi-alignment strategy must also be situated within the broader systemic transformation represented by BRICS expansion and the gradual erosion of Western economic monopoly. As emerging powers develop alternative financial architectures, the capacity of the United States to enforce compliance through tariffs, sanctions, or dollar-centric coercion becomes increasingly constrained.

India’s participation in BRICS is not merely symbolic but reflects an institutional hedge against Western disciplinary mechanisms. De-dollarisation initiatives, alternative development banks, and energy settlement diversification all contribute to an emerging multipolar economic order.

Thus, the Modi–Trump tariff episode should be read as one tactical episode within a much larger historical transition: the declining capacity of Western economic statecraft to determine the strategic choices of major civilisational powers.

---

Conclusion: India’s autonomy in the multipolar order

The Modi–Trump tariff episode does not represent a decisive pivot away from Russia. Rather, it illustrates the limits of transactional economic statecraft when confronted with historical memory, structural energy dependence, and sovereignty imperatives.

India’s dominant strategy remains multi-alignment: cooperation where beneficial, resistance where necessary, and diversification across power centres to maximise autonomy. In an emerging multipolar order defined by competitive interdependence, India’s foreign policy is best understood not as ideological non-alignment but as rational equilibrium behaviour.

---

Policy implications: strategic autonomy under tariff coercion

For India, the central lesson of the Trump tariff episode is that strategic autonomy requires more than balancing rhetoric: it requires credible bargaining enforcement. In repeated games of economic coercion, cooperation is only stable when punishment strategies exist.

First, India must develop credible retaliatory trade instruments—whether through WTO-compatible countermeasures or regional trade diversification—to prevent asymmetric tariff exploitation.

Second, India should institutionalise energy sovereignty by expanding settlement diversification, including rupee-based mechanisms, to reduce vulnerability to sanctions coercion.

Third, New Delhi must avoid over-investing in spectacle diplomacy. Symbolic summits cannot substitute for enforceable reciprocity in trade relations.

Finally, BRICS and other multipolar forums should be leveraged not as ideological blocs but as strategic hedges that widen India’s autonomy space under conditions of systemic Western decline.

India’s long-term equilibrium lies not in exclusive alignment with Washington or Moscow, but in sustained multi-vector autonomy as the defining strategy of a post-hegemonic international order.

---

Selected bibliography (Chicago style)

Acharya, Amitav. India’s Foreign Policy: Theoretical Approaches and Contemporary Debates. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

Cohen, Stephen P. India: Emerging Power. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.

Deman, Suresh. “A Strategic Sabotage: The Tariff Offensive and India’s Mismanaged Diplomatic Script.” Unpublished manuscript, Centre for Economics & Finance, London, 2026.

Ganguly, Sumit. Conflict Unending: India–Pakistan Tensions since 1947. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.

Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.

Pant, Harsh V. India’s Foreign Policy and the Middle East. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Raghavan, Srinath. 1971: A Global History of the Creation of Bangladesh. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Walt, Stephen M. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.

 

A Tribute to Sitaram Yechury – Hundred Flowers Doomed!

A Critical Reflection on the Legacy of Sitaram Yechury and the CPM

Yechuri competes with BJP & Cong! 

The rise of Sitaram Yechury within the Communist Party of India (Marxist) represents both the internal contradictions and the gradual decline of the Indian Left. Coming from a relatively petty-bourgeois background with no significant engagement in revolutionary struggles before his student days, Yechury entered national politics through the portals of JNU, eventually becoming JNUSU President under the SFI banner (Deman 2015a). Guided by the influence of Prakash Karat and later Harkishan Singh Surjit, he climbed the party hierarchy with calculated precision—becoming a Central Committee member and, finally, General Secretary. Yet, unlike many of his predecessors who endured imprisonment, police brutality, and grassroots struggles, Yechury’s political journey was remarkably insulated from the physical sacrifices that once defined Left leadership (Deman 2015b).

This shift in leadership style stands in stark contrast to earlier stalwarts of the movement such as Major Jaipal Singh, a freedom fighter who, along with Harkishan Singh Surjit, served on the Central Committee during the party’s formative years. Leaders of that generation combined theoretical clarity with a lifetime of sacrifice and direct confrontation with the state (Deman 2015b).

The CPM’s fateful decision to support the Congress-led UPA government in 2004 marked a turning point. Despite Congress’ unabashed commitment to neoliberal economic policies, its deepening military exercises with the United States, and closer ties with Israel, the CPM chose to lend its support under the justification of keeping the BJP at bay calls in question CPM;s tactical line. In fact, Yechuri’s flirtation with the Sonia-Rahul Gandhi leadership degenerated to the extent in acting as a messenger of EX-PM, Dr MM Singh to lend unsolicited advice the Nepalese, Maoist leader better known as Pranchanda, a JNU Aluminous to embrace bourgeois democracy, not only advise the Indian Maoists to shun violence, but to neutralise them in cahoot with the Congress Home Minster, Chidambaram in “Operation Green-Hunt.” He appeared to left cadre and its constituents as collaborator rather than a champion of their cause. The results were catastrophic. From 42 parliamentary seats in 2004, the CPM fell to 16 in 2009 and just 9 in 2014 (Election Commission of India 2004–2014). Far from strengthening the Left, this alliance eroded its ideological distinctiveness, alienated its grassroots cadres, and associated it with the very neoliberal policies it claimed to oppose (Deman 2015b).

Yechury’s political line further reflected a retreat from Marxist-Leninist fundamentals. Critical analysis—a method first elaborated by Immanuel Kant and later adopted by thinkers like Han Suyin, the Chinese doctor and writer who defended the Cultural Revolution—demands a concrete study of concrete conditions while remaining rooted in fundamental principles (Suyin 1967). Yet, Yechury’s leadership increasingly embraced liberal rhetoric—secularism, anti-fascism, and democratic rights—without grounding it in class struggle or revolutionary praxis. His speeches rarely invoked terms like “class struggle” or referenced historic campaigns such as “Operation Burga,” instead sounding more like those of a liberal opposition leader than a Marxist revolutionary (Deman 2015a).

It is worth recalling that 14 March 1883 marked one of the saddest days for the international working-class movement: Karl Marx passed away (Engels 1989). In reflecting on Marx’s death, Frederick Engels dismissed bourgeois democracy as an “incurable mental condition with which some people are born,” a caustic observation that underscores the chasm between revolutionary politics and the liberal democratic illusions that increasingly color the CPM’s discourse today (Deman 2015b).

Perhaps most striking was Yechury’s decision to pay tribute to Deng Xiaoping—the architect of China’s market-oriented reforms—while failing to even mention Chairman Mao Zedong, the great revolutionary who led the Chinese people to power through Marxist-Leninist struggle. His praise for U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a figure emblematic of bourgeois liberalism, further underlined a departure from the core tenets of Marxist analysis (Deman 2015a).

Mao’s own contribution to dialectical materialism stands in stark opposition to such opportunism. Mao emphasized the supremacy of the masses over the Party, insisting that if the Communist Party—understood as the conscious vanguard of the working class—deviates from Marxist-Leninist principles, it is the duty of the masses, both party members and non-members, to organize and overthrow the errant leadership. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution embodied this principle (King 1977). Far from being a Trotskyist notion of “permanent revolution,” Mao’s Cultural Revolution was a practical application of the transition of revolution, a mass mobilization designed to purge revisionist elements like Liu Shaoqi and to reaffirm the primacy of the people in the socialist project (Mohanty 1975).

In this light, Yechury’s silence on Mao and his open admiration for Deng and Roosevelt are not mere omissions; they are symptomatic of a worldview increasingly shaped by compromise and accommodation rather than revolutionary vigilance (Deman 2015b).

In the end, history may remember Sitaram Yechury not as a builder of movements, but as an outlier in the lineage of Indian Marxism—a leader who sought relevance through alliances and liberal posturing, but presided over the erosion of the Left’s mass base in West Bengal, Tripura, and beyond. The CPM’s entanglement in the web of neoliberal economics, and its inability to develop a concrete revolutionary strategy while remaining faithful to Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao principles, stands as a cautionary tale. Without theoretical rigor, grassroots mobilization, and class clarity, even the most historic parties risk being absorbed into the very bourgeois order they were created to overthrow (Suyin 1967).

References

Deman, S. 2015a. “To Be Marxist or to Be Communist, That Is the Question.” Times of India, April 26. Letter to the Editor.

Deman, S. 2015b. “CPM Party Line of Yechury—Concrete Analysis of the Concrete?” NewsView–RaceClass (blog), December 26.

Election Commission of India. 2004–2014. Statistical Reports on General Elections. New Delhi: Election Commission of India.

Engels, Friedrich. 1989. “Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx.” In Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 24. New York: International Publishers.

King, Ambrose Yeo-chi. 1977. “A Voluntarist Model of Organization: The Maoist Version and Its Critique.” British Journal of Sociology 28 (3): 363–374.

Mohanty, Mahaparta. 1975. “Mao’s Portrait of Stalin.” Economic and Political Weekly, July–August.

Suyin, Han. 1967. Asia Today. London: Jonathan Cape.

SHAKSPEAR RESSURCTED - TRUMP'S TARIFF TEMPEST!!!

    The Tariff Tempest: Navigating the Trumpian Storm

Satish Jha

A storm brews on the global horizon, its gales whipped up by a man who sees the world as a ledger to be balanced, a market to be muscled.

Donald Trump, with tariffs as his thunderbolts, has rattled the pillars of global trade in just seven months of his second term.

Over ninety nations quiver or bend, their economies bruised by the weight of his “Liberation Day” levies—10% to 50% tariffs, flung like edicts from a self-styled emperor.

China, ever the pragmatist, negotiates exemptions; Japan bows to the pressure, aligning with the Trumpian diktat. India and Brazil, defiant or perhaps unwise, raise their voices, only to find their cards dwindling in a game where the U.S. holds the deck.

This is no mere trade policy—it’s a tempest, reshaping alliances, economies, and the very rules that govern our world. How do we weather it? And what will remain when the storm passes by 2029?

Trump’s tariffs are not just economic tools; they are weapons of a small businessman’s instinct, wielding the might of the world’s largest market to arm-twist nations into submission.

He sees trade deficits as personal affronts, believing “smart” deal-making can bend the globe to his will. History, with its lessons of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act’s role in deepening the Great Depression, seems lost on him.

Economics, too, is a mystery he sidesteps, convinced that tariffs will spark an American renaissance while generating billions—$150 billion already collected, with projections soaring to $4 trillion over a decade.

Yet, the cost is steep: U.S. consumers face a $2,400 hit per household in 2025, supply chains choke, and global GDP falters, with the U.S. itself losing 0.36% of its economic output. The storm spares no one, not even its architect.

The world, caught in this gale, must choose its response. Some nations, like the EU and Japan, seek shelter in trade deals, trading sovereignty for stability. Others, like India, risk isolation by speaking out, potentially losing leverage in the great game of containing China.

Trump’s threats—nuclear submarines near Russia, secondary tariffs on India for buying Russian oil—reveal a transactional foreign policy where trade and defense are cudgels to enforce compliance. The BRICS bloc, battered by tariffs as high as 50% on Brazil and 125% on China, may find new resolve.

Trump’s pressure could forge BRICS into a tighter economic alliance, accelerating their push for alternative trade routes and a de-dollarized world. The Gulf states, already pivoting to Asia and the Global South, exemplify this shift, eyeing yuan-denominated energy trades to dodge the storm.

The Quad—India, Japan, Australia, and the U.S.—faces a reckoning. Trump’s unilateralism undermines its cohesion, as Japan and Australia, wary of economic fallout, align closer to U.S. demands. India’s defiance, coupled with its BRICS ties, may strain the alliance, potentially forcing a reorganization or even dissolution if the U.S. prioritizes bilateral deals over collective security.

International laws, once the bedrock of global order, now seem pliable, applied only to the weak. The World Trade Organization, already strained, struggles to counter Trump’s tariff onslaught, its relevance questioned as bilateralism trumps multilateralism.

At home, the Republican Party, once a bastion of free trade and fiscal restraint, has morphed into a herd following Trump’s lead. Why? Fear of his base, loyalty to his charisma, or perhaps a cynical bet on his economic gamble.

The U.S. Supreme Court, with its recent blessings, shields him from legal accountability, granting near-imperial powers. Four years of Democratic presidency failed to rein him in, not for lack of trying but because the system—polarized, sclerotic—could not muster the will or consensus to hold a man who thrives on chaos.

His family, weaving deals through backchannels, may indeed emerge as untouchable titans, their wealth insulated by a judiciary that bends to their patron.

So, how do we discern truth amid this tempest? Facts are buried under rhetoric, with Trump’s Truth Social posts proclaiming tariffs as America’s salvation while economists warn of recession.

The truth lies in the numbers—$486.7 billion in reduced U.S. imports, $451.1 billion in lost exports, and a global economy teetering on a rocky road. To navigate, the world must lean on pragmatism: diversify trade, as Canada and the Gulf states do; strengthen regional blocs like ASEAN and BRICS; and push for WTO reforms to restore order. Dialogue, not defiance, may blunt Trump’s ire, as China’s negotiations show.

By 2029, when Trump’s term ends, the fallout could be profound. A fragmented trade system, with new blocs like BRICS+ gaining clout, may challenge Western dominance.

The U.S. economy, battered by its own tariffs, risks stagflation or recession, with consumers and businesses bearing the brunt. Globally, supply chains may localize, and alliances may shift, with Europe and Asia forging ties to weather future storms. Trump, the great disruptor, may leave a world less tethered to American hegemony, richer in regional autonomy but poorer in cohesion.

To weather this storm, the world must be nimble—diversifying, negotiating, and building resilience. Trump’s tariffs are a gale, not an eternal tempest.

By 2029, the skies may clear, but the landscape will be irrevocably altered. For now, nations must batten down, seek shelter in new alliances, and wait for the winds to shift. The storm is here, but storms, however fierce, do pass.

Tariffs: The Art of Economic War Leaves India Reeling!!!

 Trump’s Tariff Blitz: The Art of Economic War Leaves India Reeling!!!

Biswanath Bhattacharya 

In an era where presidential bravado is measured not just in soundbites but in seismic policy shifts, Donald Trump’s latest tariff offensive is a masterclass in economic shock and awe—and an unambiguous signal that America’s trade playbook has changed forever. The world watched as Trump, derided for his “America First” rhetoric and pugnacious negotiation style, transformed protectionism from a relic of the past into the sharpest tool in the Oval Office arsenal. The results? A global chessboard realigned, trading partners stunned into compliance, and Wall Street’s pulse as steady as ever. But as the dust settles in global capitals, the clearest casualty emerges from the subcontinent: India, battered by Trump’s tariff fusillade and left scrambling for answers.

• Bending the World, Breaking India

Let’s set the stage: Trump’s tariff regime—once a modest 2.5%—has exploded to an average 20% across America’s trading spectrum, the highest in a century. China, Canada, the EU, and even Japan have felt the brunt. But instead of a tit-for-tat escalation, most have beaten a path to Washington with chequebooks in hand. Japan, eager to shield its manufacturing sector, inked a $550 billion investment promise for a 15% tariff reprieve. The EU, after months of wrangling, pledged $600 billion for similar mercy. Taiwan, staring down a 20% levy, is desperate to negotiate. The message is unmistakable: negotiate—or bleed.

Yet, when it comes to India, Trump’s approach is nothing short of punitive. A 50% tariff—doubling the already severe 25%—now hangs over $87 billion of Indian exports. Textiles, automotives, pharmaceuticals, seafood: no sector is spared. The rationale? India’s ongoing imports of Russian oil, a move that has infuriated Washington amid global efforts to isolate Moscow. But beneath the veneer of economic retaliation, a deeper game is afoot, one that intertwines trade, geopolitics, and the ever-present spectre of domestic American scandal.

• Wall Street Unmoved, Mumbai in Turmoil

If Trump’s intent was to shake markets, he failed—at least at home. The S&P 500 shrugged, the Dow Jones held steady, and investors cheered narrower trade deficits. But half a world away, the consequences are immediate and brutal. The BSE Sensex plummeted over 300 points within hours of the tariff announcement; the rupee, already fragile from pandemic aftershocks, sank further against the dollar. Exporters, especially in the small and medium enterprise (SME) sector, are bracing for order cancellations and razor-thin margins. Pharmaceutical giants, once heralded as the “pharmacy of the world,” now face headwinds in their largest market. The ripple effect threatens tens of thousands of jobs—a reality that no government press release can spin away.

• Scapegoat Diplomacy and the Shadow of Scandal

It’s impossible to separate Trump’s economic warfare from his perpetual need for political distraction. The tariff blitz against India comes on the heels of a diplomatic spat over claims of brokering peace between India and Pakistan, claims robustly denied by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and dismissed as political theatre. Critics in both Washington and New Delhi see the tariff escalation as a classic Trump manoeuvre: deflect attention from domestic quagmires (think Epstein files and unresolved investigations) by picking a high-profile international adversary.

The irony is bitter. While India is cast as the villain for buying Russian oil, Europe and the U.S. continue their own quiet imports. The selective outrage reeks of hypocrisy, underscoring the double standards that define Trump’s foreign policy. India’s Ministry of External Affairs, unusually blunt in its statement, condemned the tariffs as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable.” The subtext: America’s energy security is non-negotiable, but India’s can be sacrificed at the altar of presidential ambition.

• The Human Cost: Exporters on the Brink

Scroll past the headlines and the real victims emerge: India’s exporters, caught in an economic crossfire with little recourse. The textile sector, already squeezed by rising global cotton prices, now faces a 50% tariff wall. Auto suppliers, struggling to recover from chip shortages and supply chain disruptions, must now contemplate shuttered factories. Even seafood exporters—whose shrimp and fish once graced American supermarket shelves—are staring down mass layoffs. The pharmaceutical industry, long a source of affordable generics for American consumers, faces regulatory scrutiny and higher costs.

Early estimates suggest India’s GDP could contract by as much as 0.6%, a figure that translates into hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and billions in evaporated income. For a country where exports drive nearly 20% of the economy, Trump’s tariffs are more than punitive—they are existential.

• India’s Counteroffensive: Pragmatism Over Posturing

The temptation for reciprocal tariffs is strong. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has already called for a matching 50% duty on U.S. goods if negotiations stall. But India’s response, so far, is measured, even strategic. Instead of tit-for-tat escalation, the government is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy. Sectoral support for MSMEs (micro, small, and medium enterprises) is being ramped up, with tax breaks and emergency credit lines. Limited market access in dairy products is being dangled before American negotiators—a carrot to offset the stick. And perhaps most importantly, India is pivoting toward branding and niche markets, seeking to reduce dependency on price-sensitive exports vulnerable to tariff shocks.

There is talk, too, of leveraging India’s vast domestic market. As Western companies look to diversify away from China, India’s 1.4 billion consumers are an increasingly attractive alternative. The government is keen to turn adversity into opportunity, positioning India as an indispensable node in global supply chains. Whether this will be enough to offset the pain of lost exports remains uncertain.

• Geopolitics in the Age of Trump: Realignment or Rupture?

Trump’s tariff blitz is more than a trade war—it’s a recalibration of global power relationships. By forcing major economies to negotiate on his terms (and pocketing billions in the process), he has rewritten the rules of engagement. But such victories come with strings attached. America’s allies, battered but compliant, may play ball today—but resentment festers. The EU’s $600 billion pledge masks deep divisions over agricultural quotas and digital taxes. Japan’s $550 billion investment is a short-term fix for a long-term problem. Even China, after a flurry of negotiations, remains wary of Washington’s unpredictability.

For India, the stakes are even higher. Caught between its strategic partnership with the U.S. and its need for energy security, New Delhi faces choices that will shape its economic and diplomatic future. The tariff war is a test not just of resilience, but of vision—can India chart a course that preserves sovereignty without succumbing to isolation?

• Trump’s Win, India’s Wounds

As the dust settles, one truth becomes clear: Trump is winning, at least for now. America’s trade deficit is shrinking, foreign investment is pouring in, and global markets remain remarkably stable. But the price is paid not in Washington, but in Mumbai, New Delhi, and thousands of export-driven towns across India. The pain is immediate, the wound deep.

Whether Trump’s tariff blitz heralds a new era of American-led protectionism or is merely a volatile flashpoint in the annals of trade history remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that India is left to pick up the pieces—an economic powerhouse knocked off balance by a president who plays hardball, and rarely loses.

In the end, Trump’s tariff strategy may be remembered as the moment America bent the world to its will. But for India, it marks a reckoning: a reminder that in the high-stakes game of global politics, even giants can bleed.

Game of Tariffs - Trump Offensive & India's Passive Response

 A Strategic Sabotage: The Tariff Offensive and India’s Mismanaged Diplomatic Script

By Dr. Suresh Deman
Honorary Director, Centre for Strategic Affairs, London

---

In the turbulent theatre of modern geopolitics, tariffs are no longer mundane instruments of trade policy—they have become strategic weapons of coercion. Donald Trump’s imposition of escalating tariffs on Indian exports—first 25%, then 50%—was not rooted in trade imbalances or economic logic. It was a calculated manoeuvre of economic aggression, aimed at forcing asymmetric concessions while concealing self-interest behind populist rhetoric. It was a textbook case of strategic sabotage disguised as transactional diplomacy.

And India—rather than resisting—played along with theatre and illusion.

---

From Houston to Ahmedabad: The Optics of Deference

At the “Howdy Modi” rally in Houston in 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi did the unthinkable in modern diplomacy—publicly endorsed Trump’s re-election bid with the slogan: “Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar.” Months later, India rolled out the red carpet for Trump in Ahmedabad with a stadium of chants and cultural displays. The diplomatic script was heavy on spectacle but light on strategy.

While the visuals suggested a deepening bond, the reality was far harsher: Trump imposed punitive tariffs, threatened sanctions for oil purchases from Russia, and continued to pressure India to buy American defense hardware—all while quietly expanding his own business interests in Indian cities like Pune and Mumbai. The asymmetry was glaring, yet largely unchallenged.

---

Game Theory in Geopolitics: A Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma

This imbalance is best understood through the lens of game theory, particularly the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. In this framework, two players (India and the U.S.) repeatedly choose between cooperation (mutual benefit) or defection (one-sided gain).

Trump’s tariffs, demands for defense deals, and threats of sanctions were consistent defections—moves that maximized U.S. gain at India's expense. India, instead of retaliating or leveraging multilateral forums, responded with continued cooperation, hoping to preserve long-term goodwill.

But in repeated games, if one player continues to defect while the other cooperates, it leads to a predictable outcome: the cooperating player is systematically exploited. India’s foreign policy, lacking credible retaliation mechanisms—like China’s critical mineral leverage—left it unable to shift the game dynamic. Trump was betting and bowling, while India was merely fielding, trying not to concede too many runs.

---

A Deal That Never Was

Trump’s negotiation style—“take my goods at 0%, buy my planes at 30%, invest in America, and shut up about sovereignty”—was not a diplomatic overture but an ultimatum. A deal under such conditions was structurally impossible. It was never about compromise; it was about coercion.

The Modi government, chasing photo-ops and slogans, misjudged this reality. Instead of recalibrating strategy, it continued the charade—burning diplomatic capital and public resources in a game rigged from the start.

---

Strategic Drift and Eroded Autonomy

India’s once-prized strategic autonomy has been slowly eroded. Its relationship with Russia—a historic pillar of foreign policy—has been reduced to transactional oil and arms deals conducted under U.S. scrutiny. Despite Russia’s willingness to develop new BRICS financial mechanisms and de-dollarised trade, India remained passive, hedging instead of leading.

Meanwhile, China—with its 40% savings rate, dominant state-owned enterprises, and aggressive diversification into Southeast Asia—has built the kind of strategic leverage India lacks. Xi Jinping’s outreach to Vietnam, Indonesia, and even Japan and South Korea shows a multipronged, long-term vision. India, by contrast, has clung to the hope that balancing multiple powers without making commitments would suffice.

---

U.S. Foreign Policy and Global Risk

The Trump-era U.S. foreign policy was a mix of isolationism and brinkmanship. Nuclear arms control treaties were discarded. Trade was weaponised. Allies were humiliated. This strategy—epitomised by the tariff blitz against India—elevated unpredictability into doctrine.

India, rather than asserting leadership in non-aligned nuclear diplomacy or WTO reform, largely capitulated—reaffirming its role as a rule-taker, not a rule-maker.

---

Diaspora Mirage and Partisan Traps

The Indian diaspora in the U.S., swayed by identity and visibility, offered vocal support to Trump, mistaking proximity for influence. Their blind loyalty, captured in Modi’s slogan in Houston, overlooked the structural damage Trump's policies inflicted on India’s economy and global standing. Diaspora euphoria replaced strategic clarity.

---

Institutional Breakdown: Where Is the Foreign Ministry?

Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar—once seen as the brain of Indian diplomacy—has been sidelined. India’s external affairs apparatus has become a stage for statecraft-as-spectacle. Strategic thinking has been replaced with PR management.

The absence of institutional checks and the over-centralisation of foreign policy in the Prime Minister’s Office has eroded India’s credibility. Allies are unsure, adversaries emboldened.

---

Silence Is Not Strategy

Since 2014, Prime Minister Modi has not held a single unscripted press conference. This isn’t just a political oddity—it’s a democratic liability. In moments of crisis, public accountability is not optional. As tariffs bite, supply chains strain, and alliances wobble, India needs clarity—not charisma.

A press conference is not a threat—it is a necessity. India’s electorate, business community, and global partners deserve real answers, not choreographed monologues.

---

Time for Strategic Reset

If India is to reclaim agency, it must shift gears:

• End passive diplomacy: Recalibrate foreign policy toward Eurasia, diversify alliances, and leverage BRICS platforms to shape global norms.

• Play strategically: Use multilateral forums like the WTO to challenge tariff aggression and trade coercion.

• Build economic leverage: Invest in critical technologies and supply chains to reduce dependency and enhance bargaining power.

• Restore institutional diplomacy: Empower professional diplomats and reduce personality-driven foreign policy.

• Demand leadership accountability: The Prime Minister must face the press—and the people—with courage and transparency.

---

Final Reckoning: Speak or Be Sidelined

Trump’s tariff war was not about trade. It was about testing India’s resolve. India failed that test—not because of weak fundamentals, but because of weak strategy and silence.

In the repeated prisoner’s dilemma of global diplomacy, consistent cooperation without consequences for defection ensures permanent disadvantage. India must break that cycle—not with anger, but with clarity, cohesion, and courage.

The unipolar world is gone. What comes next will be defined not by slogans but by substance.

The time for the theatre is over. Prime Minister Modi must speak—not in applause lines, but in strategy.

---

Dr. Suresh Deman is Honorary Director at the Centre for Strategic Affairs, London. He has served as a consultant to UNEP and UNCTAD and writes on global economics, diplomacy, and democratic governance.