Ameet Kumar Bali
For nearly two decades, India-United States relations were hailed as a cornerstone of the 21st-century world order, a partnership built on democracy, development, and shared values. Yet, the return of Donald Trump to the White House has cast this relationship into turbulence. What was once a story of convergence has become one of compulsion, competition, and recalibration. At the heart of this tension lies Trump’s revived “America First” policy, which seeks to safeguard U.S. interests through economic and geopolitical assertiveness.
But India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has refused to be cornered or coerced. New Delhi’s firm adherence to strategic autonomy has made it clear that the partnership must rest on equality, not subordination.
Trade, Tariffs, and the Politics of Pressure
The first signs of strain appeared when Trump re-imposed 50% tariffs on Indian goods, targeting India’s growing export sectors. Claiming to protect American industries, he also withdrew India’s preferential trade status under the GSP scheme and labelled India’s economy as a “dead economy.” This was less about economics and more about political theatre. Trump wanted to signal toughness to his domestic base, portraying India as a beneficiary of U.S. generosity. However, the move backfired diplomatically. India remained calm but firm, countering that growth slowdowns are not collapses and that economic cycles are natural for emerging powers. Washington soon realised that its tariff-based coercion would not yield compliance. India did not alter its energy policy, nor did it change its stance on trade protection for small-scale industries. Instead, India subtly reminded the U.S. that the era of one-sided partnerships is over.
America First vs. Atmanirbhar Bharat
Trump’s “America First” doctrine and Modi’s “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (self-reliant India) vision reflect two distinct models of nationalism. One seeks dominance; the other seeks resilience. The U.S. strategy aimed to pressure India to align completely with American global interests , to distance itself from Russia, to act as a frontline state against China, and to open its markets further to U.S. goods and investments. But India responded with quiet strength. It made it clear that strategic autonomy was non-negotiable. New Delhi continued to buy affordable oil from Russia, maintained balanced ties with China through regional platforms, and pursued technology collaborations with France, Japan, and even the Middle East. This marked a turning point, the U.S. learned that India would not trade sovereignty for favours, and that New Delhi’s policies are guided by national interest, not external pressure.
The Indo-Pak Conflict and the “Peace Prize” Episode
The situation escalated during a four-day Indo-Pak military operation along the Line of Control, when both nations briefly clashed before de-escalation. Trump quickly claimed that his mediation had averted a war and even hinted at a Nobel Peace Prize for himself. Prime Minister Modi publicly dismissed the claim, asserting, “No one forced India into it.” The statement resonated globally – not as defiance, but as dignity. India’s message was clear: its regional actions are sovereign decisions, not stage-managed by global powers seeking headlines. This episode deepened Indian mistrust of Washington’s political opportunism, reminding policymakers that American diplomacy often conflates self-promotion with peacemaking.
Energy, Eurasia, and the Optics of Independence
India’s continued oil trade with Russia became another flashpoint. Despite U.S. sanctions pressure, India prioritised economic pragmatism over Western approval. Its participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) alongside Russia and China further symbolised an independent foreign policy posture. For Washington, these optics were unsettling. For India, they represented balance. Modi’s diplomatic engagements with Putin and Xi Jinping at the SCO summit illustrated that India is not beholden to any bloc, it seeks stability through dialogue, not dependence.
Domestic and Strategic Compulsions
Both Trump and Modi face distinct but equally compelling domestic pressures: Trump’s compulsion is populism. He must appear unyielding on trade, immigration, and foreign policy to secure his political base. Modi’s compulsion is developmental. India must generate millions of jobs to utilise its demographic dividend, transform infrastructure, and attract investment, all while maintaining dignity on the global stage. This duality explains much of the friction: Trump thrives on confrontation; Modi thrives on self-reliance. Yet, both understand that global influence demands strategic balance, not submission.
The U.S. Pressure Strategy and Its Reversal
Trump’s administration initially believed that economic coercion through tariffs, harsh rhetoric, and trade isolation, could pressure India into alignment. The U.S. expected India to yield in order to preserve its access to American markets and technology. However, India turned the equation around. Through resilience, diplomatic restraint, and diversified global partnerships, India proved its survival capacity without American support. Today, Washington has come to a sobering realization: India can survive and grow without the U.S., leveraging partnerships with Europe, Russia, ASEAN, and the Middle East. But if the U.S. wants to remain relevant as a superpower, it cannot afford to alienate India. Without India’s cooperation: The Indo-Pacific strategy loses credibility. The Quad alliance weakens. U.S. access to Asia’s largest consumer market of 1.4 billion people which will be diminish. In essence, the U.S. now recognizes that India is not a junior partner; it is a strategic equal.
India’s Economic Confidence and America’s Realisation
Trump’s “dead economy” remark, meant as a jibe, has ironically reinforced India’s economic narrative. Despite global slowdowns, India remains one of the fastest growing major economies, a hub for digital innovation, and a leading destination for global investment. For the United States, India’s vast middle class and youthful workforce represent not just a market, but a necessity, the engine of global demand that can sustain American industry, technology, and exports. Thus, Washington’s attempt to pressure India through trade hostility has transformed into a realisation of interdependence.
The New Balance of Power
The truth is now evident:- India without the U.S. can survive through self-reliance, alternative partnerships, and domestic innovation. The U.S. without India risks strategic decline, in Asia, in technology partnerships, and in moral credibility as a global democratic leader. Trump’s administration, though adversarial in tone, has inadvertently helped New Delhi assert its global identity, not as a follower, but as a force of balance in an unstable world.
Conclusion: From Dependency to Dignity
India-U.S. relations are not collapsing; they are maturing. They are moving from emotional optimism to realistic equilibrium. The United States has learned that India cannot be pressured into partnership; it must be persuaded through respect. India, in turn, has shown that friendship with the U.S. is desirable, but never indispensable. For both nations, the way forward lies in partnership, not patronage, a cooperation built not on threats or tariffs, but on trust and shared democratic purpose. In the final analysis, it is not India that needs the U.S. to survive, it is the U.S. that needs India to remain relevant as a superpower in Asia and beyond.
