Trump has always crowed that he was a deal-maker. Two weeks ago, we agreed, and talked about why he deserved the Nobel Prize for his efforts. What we neglected to mention, however, was that before Trump, the US was an even better deal-maker (impossible, we know). They sought concessions from India and offered support in return. Case in point: between 2010 and 2020 Venezuela and Iran were amongst India’s largest suppliers of oil. India gave them up – and bought more from the US – in return for a closer strategic relationship. Fair enough. The two partners had a deal and moved forward together.
With Trump, however, the much-touted “deals” and “reciprocal tariffs” turned out to be not much of either. India, like many other countries, offered zero tariffs in many areas but instead of taking it, the US hurt Indian sentiments, pushing Indians to buy unlabelled milk from cows that had been fed meat products. This was a religious anathema to a billion people. American agricultural experts understood that, even though Trump didn’t. Bottom line: this was no deal for the Indians.
Add to that, Trump went out of his way to court Pakistan – the only apparent reason being their involvement in his family’s crypto business. The US stated that they were balancing ties between the countries. Quad and SCO
India did the same, increasing its imports of discounted Russian oil and engaging with China – reflecting its long-standing principle of strategic autonomy. Yet, this did not fly with the US. It is okay for the US to have multiple partners, but not for India to do the same. Quad and SCO
So this is neither a deal, nor a transaction, but hypocrisy and undermining of mutual trust. As Peter Navarro said, India may be in bed with Russia (bad), but if the US is in bed with Pakistan (which harboured Bin Laden not so long ago) that is okay.
That is not all. Despite criticising India’s energy ties with Russia, the US continued trading in Russian uranium and other critical minerals. China and the EU, which bought more oil and natural gas from Russia, were left unscathed.
Many parties have noticed this. A European analysis noted that India’s multipolar strategy is often miscast as opportunistic, while America’s own double game with Pakistan is not. Of course, US foreign policy has historically managed multiple relationships – even conflicting ones. The US continued to engage with Pakistan (despite Pakistan harboring Bin Laden) as a “phenomenal counterterrorism partner,” recognising the broader importance of operational cooperation. Meanwhile, Indian overtures toward Russia and China drew intense pushback. Analysts argue that the West perceives India’s strategic rebalancing as eroding collective Western unity – particularly with regard to isolating Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. India’s preferential energy ties with Moscow were viewed as weakening sanctions enforcement.
Moreover, India’s participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, alongside Russia and China, was widely seen as signaling its openness to an alternative, non-Western bloc – further challenging the US-led global order. Quad and SCO
This tension aligns with international relations theory. From a realist perspective, strategic partnerships require alignment – not merely transactional conveniences. States that appear unpredictably aligned with adversarial powers may be deemed high-risk for sharing sensitive technologies or long-term security commitments.
There is only one problem with this theory of sensitive technologies: the US does not share source code with non-NATO anyway!
India’s approach, then, was not opportunistic – but rather strategic balancing. But the US, expecting transactional alignment (e.g., cut Russian oil, get trade benefits), interpreted India’s continued multipolar engagement as unilateral non-compliance.
Hence Peter Navarro’s insistence: “If India wants to be treated as a strategic partner, it needs to act like one.” Presumably, if the US wants to go to bed with Pakistan, that is “balancing relationships”.
Trump’s imposition of 50% tariffs on Indian goods, specifically targeting its continued imports of Russian oil, triggered political and economic backlash in India. Indian leaders denounced this as “unjustified and unreasonable”, citing Western hypocrisy for maintaining their own Russian trade. Reports estimated that these tariffs would cost India approximately USD 37 billion in trade and jeopardise thousands of jobs, although other markets like China and the EU could quickly make up for the loss, along with trans-shipments back to the US.
The US must shift from punitive, hypocritical tactics to principled reciprocity:
- Consistency: Apply standards uniformly across allies to avoid undermining credibility.
- Reciprocity: Support India’s regional priorities – e.g., defence cooperation and Quad alignment – and recognise its concessions
- Autonomy: Recognise India’s multipolar balancing is a reflection of the actions that the US, EU, China, Russia, and others all take. Quad and SCO
India’s continued energy and diplomatic engagement with Russia and China is the same kind of autonomy that Washington reserves for itself. India, China and Russia are not going away. The sooner it realises it, the better for itself, and the world.
Read more: Colossal blunder: American experts criticise Trump’s India strategy
