Opinion | Trump Has Miscalculated That India Is A Softer Target Than China

The Trump tariff of 50% on Indian goods, officially implemented on August 27, has cast significant uncertainty over one of the world's most crucial bilateral relationships. Even before implementation, New Delhi's attitude toward Washington had begun to deteriorate. America's decision to impose punitive duties, announced dramatically on 'Liberation Day,' was subsequently followed by an additional 25% secondary tariff, elevating the total burden on Indian exports to among the highest globally.

In India, these measures are broadly interpreted as deliberately punitive rather than sound economic policy. Washington's explanation that the move was connected to India's ongoing purchase of Russian oil has failed to persuade either policymakers or the general public. Many Indians highlight China as a glaring inconsistency, as it remains Russia's largest oil customer yet faces no similar sanctions. Conversely, if Trump's genuine objective was to reduce Moscow's revenue and terminate the Ukraine conflict, targeting New Delhi accomplishes little toward that goal. More fundamentally, the Trump administration appears to ignore that the Russia-Ukraine conflict stems from intricate historical and cultural dynamics, not merely economic factors. Even Trump, who previously portrayed himself as the ultimate "dealmaker," has achieved minimal success in securing concessions from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Despite high-profile engagements including the Alaska summit and numerous phone conversations, the US under Trump has been unable to effect meaningful change, let alone conclude the war.

Also Read | A "Secret" Xi Jinping Letter Was Key To Improved India-China Ties: Report

The Trump administration's tariff decision indicates a broader strategic error in believing India represents a more vulnerable target than China. While India's trade volume with the United States is substantially smaller than China's, potentially leading Washington to assume New Delhi could be easily pressured, the ramifications have proven far more political than economic. What began as a trade dispute has evolved into a matter of national dignity and sovereignty for India. Tariffs are increasingly perceived not simply as market barriers but as coercive instruments designed to undermine India's independence. This sentiment has found strong resonance across New Delhi's political spectrum and is increasingly influencing domestic discourse.

Some context regarding China might benefit US understanding. India's experience with China following the 2020 Ladakh border confrontations has left enduring wounds. Though both nations have subsequently pursued gradual reconciliation—particularly after October 2024—the trust deficit remains substantial. Beijing has forfeited an entire generation's goodwill, confirmed by surveys indicating Indian youth overwhelmingly regard China with skepticism. Rebuilding confidence could require decades.

Against this backdrop, Washington previously enjoyed considerably stronger goodwill foundations. Over two decades, India and the US overcame Cold War distrust to establish a strategic partnership characterized by defense agreements, technology exchange, and strategic Indo-Pacific cooperation. Consequently, unlike attitudes toward China, Indian youth typically viewed the US as their most trusted global partner.

The implementation of steep tariffs threatens to reverse these advances. Public opinion is shifting rapidly even among India's small and medium enterprises, who argue the country should develop alternative supply chains and resist "arm-twisting" by any major power, including the United States.

Within Washington, India's frustration has particularly targeted certain Trump advisers, including Scott Besant, Peter Navarro, and Howard Lutnick, widely portrayed in Indian media as the tariff regime's architects. Their rhetoric, often expressed in aggressive language about opening India's markets and limiting Russian oil purchases, is interpreted as hostile campaigning rather than constructive diplomacy. The public posturing by Trump himself and his "tariff trio" has produced the opposite effect on New Delhi's position. Both the Indian government and broader public now appear unified in their resolve to continue Russian oil purchases while exploring new relationship opportunities.

Also Read | "Using US Dollars To Buy Russian Oil": Trump Adviser's New India Tariff Rant

For India, the matter transcends economics. As a civilizational state with expanding global influence, New Delhi resists being treated as a subordinate partner. The Trump administration's dependence on tariffs as a crude foreign policy instrument reflects an outdated 20th-century approach ill-suited to today's multipolar era. America's forceful treatment of another nation represents a template from the previous century. While tariffs may constitute a key component of Trump's strategic arsenal, they prove ineffective against major economies—particularly a civilizational state ranking among the world's top five economies with promising growth prospects.

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author