In the shifting balance of world order, few nations stand as precariously yet as resiliently as
India today. The imposition of the highest tariffs by the United States under the final stretch of
Trumpian economic nationalism has cast a long shadow on India’s global trade prospects.
These tariffs are not merely trade measures; they are weapons in a broader arsenal of
economic coercion, designed to isolate and bend nations toward the strategic goals of
Washington. For India, a country balancing between an aspirational growth trajectory and the
realities of dependency on global markets, the challenge is existential.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), convening once again in a theatre of competing
narratives, offers a contrasting vision to that of Washington’s economic diktats. While the SCO
was initially framed as a security pact, it has now become a stage where economic resilience
and multipolarity are tested.
For India, its participation is both symbolic and practical. Symbolic because it demonstrates
New Delhi’s refusal to be confined within the binary of U.S.-led alliances and symbolic isolation.
Practical because the SCO includes two of India’s most vital partners—Russia and
China—whose own experiences of sanctions and tariff wars have forced them into models of
self-reliance and alternate financing.
Yet, the American design goes far beyond tariffs. Washington’s persuasion of European nations
to reduce or altogether cease their investments in India represents a deeper attempt to
undercut the flow of capital that has sustained India’s expanding GDP. In the short run, this can
pinch the veins of infrastructure growth, technology partnerships, and even the outsourcing
industry. In the long run, it could press India to choose: either conform to U.S. strategic goals or
innovate a new framework of alliances that protect its economic sovereignty.
The narrative woven around “Brahmanism” as a divisive tool also enters this geopolitical
playbook. America, in projecting itself as the defender of liberal values, has increasingly sought
to expose India’s internal social fissures. By magnifying fault lines—be they of caste, religion, or
cultural assertion—the U.S. indirectly hopes to weaken India’s image as a stable democratic
marketplace.
The tactic is old: when internal societies are destabilized, the external bargaining position
weakens. In pushing this discourse, Washington indirectly builds pressure on India to abandon
energy partnerships, particularly its strategic oil imports from Russia.
The oil question is central. Energy has always been the artery of growth, and India’s growing
dependence on Russian oil in a time of Western sanctions makes it both resilient and
vulnerable. Resilient, because discounted Russian crude provides India with breathing space
against inflationary shocks. Vulnerable, because it opens India to punitive trade restrictions and
financial isolation from Western banking mechanisms.
To stop buying from Russia, as America demands, would be to accept higher costs and a
dependence on the very powers seeking to discipline it. To continue buying, on the other hand,
is to risk escalating sanctions and diplomatic frictions.
What then are India’s options?
First, India must deepen its role within multilateral institutions like the SCO and BRICS. These
groupings, however imperfect, represent the architecture of a multipolar world where
alternatives to Western financial hegemony can be explored. A greater emphasis on rupee-
based trade settlements, sovereign digital currencies, and joint energy projects could dilute the
unilateral bite of American tariffs.
Second, India’s domestic economy must undergo rapid diversification. Manufacturing,
agriculture, and technology cannot remain at the mercy of global supply chains. A genuine
Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) would mean not just slogans but creating capacities to
produce what tariffs seek to choke. The more India internalizes production, the less vulnerable
it becomes to external shocks.
Third, India must not abandon Europe to America’s persuasion. The European Union, already
fatigued by its dependency on Washington’s strategic whims, is searching for stable Asian
partners beyond China. India must present itself not as a secondary option but as the
democratic anchor of Eurasia. Building bilateral investment protections, emphasizing green
energy partnerships, and tapping into Europe’s quest for a China-plus-one model can keep
capital flowing even when Washington frowns.
Fourth, India must resist the weaponization of internal identity politics in the global narrative.
Brahmanism, Hindu nationalism, or any other cultural framework should not be allowed to
become tools for external actors to fracture domestic harmony. India’s strength has always
been its pluralism. Protecting that pluralism is as much a geopolitical necessity as it is a moral
one.
At the heart of it, India stands at a crossroads where history demands clarity of vision. The
American approach, driven by tariffs and coercion, seeks to reduce India into a strategic
subordinate. The SCO, for all its limitations, offers a window into another possibility—a
multipolar order where India negotiates not from weakness but from autonomy. The stakes are
high: GDP growth, social cohesion, energy security, and above all, sovereignty.
If India chooses caution alone, it risks stagnation under pressure. If it chooses confrontation, it
risks isolation. But if it chooses creative autonomy—balancing old partnerships with new
innovations—it can turn this moment of crisis into a catalyst for independence.
For a nation that has always defined itself by its ability to endure, adapt, and emerge stronger,
the current storm may well be another test of destiny. The tariffs may choke, the sanctions may
bite, but history suggests that India rarely bows; it bends, it recalibrates, and it survives.
The question is not whether India can survive this phase—it surely will. The question is whether
it can transform survival into leadership in a fractured, polarized world.
(Author is RK Columnist and can be reached at: [email protected])
Box: The question is not whether India can survive this phase—it surely will. The question is
whether it can transform survival into leadership in a fractured, polarized world
