India
oi-Pankaj Mishra
The
latest
tariff
threat
emerging
from
Washington
is
less
a
calibrated
act
of
statecraft
and
more
a
blunt
political
instrument,
wielded
with
little
regard
for
economic
reality
or
long-standing
strategic
partnerships.
US
President
Donald
Trump
backing
a
bill
that
could
impose
up
to
500
per
cent
tariffs
on
countries
purchasing
Russian
oil
is
not
merely
an
escalation-
it
is
a
signal
of
strategic
confusion.
In
targeting
India
alongside
China
and
Brazil,
the
proposed
sanctions
risk
undermining
decades
of
carefully
built
Indo-US
ties
while
exposing
the
limits
of
tariff-driven
diplomacy
in
a
multipolar
world.
The
US’s
proposed
tariffs
of
up
to
500%
on
countries
buying
Russian
oil,
as
well
as
existing
tariffs
on
Indian
goods,
could
undermine
the
longstanding
Indo-US
ties
and
global
trade,
while
also
affecting
Indian
markets.These
tariffs
are
seen
as
potential
economic
shock
weapons
and
may
not
align
with
India’s
economic
priorities
and
its
growing
global
influence.
To
be
clear,
India’s
purchase
of
Russian
oil
is
not
an
act
of
geopolitical
defiance;
it
is
a
rational
economic
decision
shaped
by
energy
security,
inflation
control
and
national
interest.
Since
the
Ukraine
war
disrupted
global
supply
chains,
New
Delhi
has
diversified
its
energy
basket
to
shield
its
economy
from
volatility.
Expecting
India
to
bear
disproportionate
economic
pain
to
underwrite
a
Western
conflict
strategy
reflects
a
misreading
of
both
India’s
priorities
and
its
growing
global
leverage.
What
makes
the
current
tariff
threat
more
unsettling
is
that
it
is
not
occurring
in
a
vacuum.
The
US
has
already
imposed
tariffs
of
around
50
per
cent
on
select
Indian
goods,
ostensibly
linked
to
the
same
Russia-related
concerns.
Those
measures
have
begun
to
bite,
slowing
shipments
and
unsettling
exporters.
The
proposed
500
per
cent
tariff-
however
improbable
it
may
sound-
has
therefore
rattled
markets
because
it
builds
on
an
existing
punitive
framework.
Markets
do
not
wait
for
policy
certainty;
they
price
in
risk,
and
that
is
precisely
what
was
visible
in
the
sharp
fall
across
Indian
equities,
particularly
metals,
oil
and
industrial
stocks.
Yet
this
is
where
Washington’s
approach
appears
fundamentally
misguided.
Tariffs
of
this
scale
are
not
surgical
sanctions;
they
are
economic
shock
weapons.
They
do
not
merely
hurt
the
target
country-
they
distort
global
trade,
raise
costs
for
American
consumers,
and
accelerate
the
very
decoupling
the
US
claims
to
fear.
Penalising
India,
the
world’s
fastest-growing
major
economy
and
a
key
Indo-Pacific
partner,
weakens
the
broader
strategic
architecture
the
US
has
spent
years
trying
to
build
as
a
counterweight
to
China.
India,
however,
is
not
the
India
of
the
1990s-
vulnerable,
inward-looking
and
dependent
on
a
narrow
set
of
markets.
Over
the
last
decade,
New
Delhi
has
deliberately
pursued
strategic
autonomy,
not
as
a
slogan
but
as
an
economic
doctrine.
From
boosting
domestic
manufacturing
under
the
“Make
in
India” push
to
expanding
infrastructure
at
scale,
India
has
been
laying
the
groundwork
for
resilience.
The
current
turbulence
only
reinforces
the
logic
of
that
path.
Crucially,
the
US
is
no
longer
India’s
only
window
to
the
world.
Asia
itself
offers
a
vast
and
growing
marketplace-
from
Southeast
Asia
to
West
Asia-
where
energy,
manufacturing
and
technology
linkages
are
deepening.
The
BRICS
grouping,
often
dismissed
in
Western
commentary,
is
steadily
evolving
into
an
alternative
economic
platform,
facilitating
trade
in
local
currencies
and
reducing
overdependence
on
the
dollar-dominated
system.
Meanwhile,
the
European
Union,
despite
its
alignment
with
Washington
on
Ukraine,
remains
commercially
pragmatic.
India’s
trade
and
technology
engagement
with
Europe
has
expanded
significantly,
driven
by
mutual
recognition
that
supply
chain
diversification
is
no
longer
optional.
This
diversification
is
India’s
strongest
hedge
against
tariff
coercion.
No
single
market,
however
large,
can
now
dictate
India’s
economic
trajectory.
While
short-term
volatility
is
unavoidable-
markets
have
shown
as
much-
the
long-term
fundamentals
remain
intact.
Domestic
consumption,
infrastructure
spending
and
a
steadily
expanding
manufacturing
base
continue
to
anchor
growth.
Tariff
threats
may
dent
sentiment,
but
they
cannot
reverse
structural
momentum.
There
is
also
a
political
dimension
Washington
may
be
underestimating.
Heavy-handed
economic
pressure
tends
to
harden,
not
soften,
public
opinion
in
democracies.
In
India,
such
measures
are
more
likely
to
strengthen
the
argument
for
self-reliance
and
strategic
distance
than
to
compel
policy
reversal.
History
suggests
that
nations
rarely
surrender
core
economic
interests
under
external
pressure;
they
adapt,
diversify
and,
eventually,
retaliate
through
alternative
alignments.
For
the
United
States,
the
choice
is
stark.
It
can
treat
India
as
a
transactional
lever
in
its
Russia
policy,
or
it
can
recognise
India
as
a
partner
with
its
own
compulsions
and
constraints.
Tariffs
of
intimidation
may
play
well
in
domestic
political
theatre,
but
they
are
a
poor
substitute
for
nuanced
diplomacy
in
a
fractured
global
order.
India,
for
its
part,
must
absorb
the
shock
without
panic.
The
tariff
challenge
is
real,
but
so
is
India’s
capacity
to
withstand
it.
In
a
world
drifting
towards
economic
blocs
and
regionalised
trade,
resilience-
not
compliance-
will
define
success.
And
that
is
a
lesson
Washington
would
do
well
to
relearn
before
tariffs
end
up
weakening
alliances
rather
than
strengthening
them.
