India’s foreign policymakers are grappling with the fallout of recent economic sanctions imposed by former President Donald Trump, which have cast a shadow over India’s aspirations on the global stage. Despite India’s significant economic growth and its anticipated placement among the world’s leading powers, the escalating tensions with the United States have revealed vulnerabilities in India’s foreign relations strategy, particularly under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Modi’s foreign policy has sought to project India’s independence in a multipolar world, pursuing “strategic autonomy.” The recent attacks have cast serious doubt on that strategy. Earlier this year, in April, Trump slapped a punitive 25% tariff on Indian products. This rate was higher than the tariffs that were initially applied on some of America’s closest allies. They didn’t stop there, they raised this punitive action to 50%. This decision was meant to address India’s continued business with Russian oil amidst the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
The impact of these tariffs reaches further than just the dollars and cents. As such, they signal a fairly seismic re-evaluation of India’s status in the current international hierarchy. India’s ability to get away with buying Russian oil, refining it, and re-exporting it showed just how much diplomatic leeway India has. It illustrated the country’s newfound capacity to maneuver within contentious geopolitical spheres. The U.S. tariffs are highly disruptive, and they threaten to upend this position.
India’s leaders had anticipated that their economic clout would secure them a place at the world’s top table. They’re unprepared for a new and unexpected reality. Trump’s tariffs are not arbitrary. They test the waters for a new villain in this story where America has finally woken up to India’s role on the global platform. The erstwhile president sees India as a transactional ally. He misses the deep historical ally-clientelistic dynamics that determine the reality of U.S. foreign policy.
Or at least that was implied, when Modi and Trump declared they had a “special relationship.” Modi personally wooed the former president to forge their bond. The challenge for the environmental movement—this bond—has come under strain. On the national security front, Trump would like voters to believe that his pleas stopped an India-Pakistan war. Yet this depiction portrays both countries as headache-inducing neighbors rather than collaborative stakeholders in regional security.
With India’s recent military engagements with Pakistan and Trump’s dismissive stance towards these issues, Indian officials have felt compelled to reject any notion of equivalency between the two countries. This sentiment further complicates Modi’s diplomatic landscape. The Ukraine war has prompted a deep introspection among Indian policymakers about the pragmatism—or otherwise—of their international relations strategy. They are concerned that the U.S. focus on clientism over India’s sovereignty.
The Quad, as it is called, is a loose strategic alliance made up of India, the U.S., Japan and Australia. At first, many viewed it as a game changing response to China’s increased assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. But new actions threaten to unravel this new coalition’s power. The Quad’s prospects are now intertwined with the U.S.’s perception of India’s reliability as a partner.
The recent steep tariff on Indian exports has added insult to injury and created tremendous hardship in India’s economy. At this 50% rate making all nonexempt Indian goods uncompetitive in the U.S. market, Indian exporters will suffer catastrophic effects. The implications are manifold: not only does this impede economic growth, but it undermines Modi’s broader ambitions to position India as a major player in global trade.
India’s policymakers are now left to confront hard lessons about their country’s place in the new world order. The truth that their previous assumptions about their status were wrong is starting to hit home. Right now Modi is sailing in rough seas. So it’s very important for him to make a course correction on his foreign policy direction and how he pursues international partnerships.