US President Donald Trump's recent announcement of a 25% tariff on Indian exports coupled with the threat of additional and substantial penalties for importing energy and defense systems from Russia has reignited tensions between the world's two largest democracies. Although framed as a protectionist gesture designed to revitalise American manufacturing, the move is far more than a bilateral trade dispute. It reflects a deeper and more structural friction between two global powers navigating a new era of multipolarity - one in which India is no longer a junior partner in someone else's order but a strategic pole of its own.
A Quadripolar World
What makes this episode significant is not its short-term economic impact - though that, too, is considerable - but the way it underscores the evolving fault lines of a world increasingly defined not by a single superpower, but by four competing centres of influence. In this emerging "quadripolar" configuration of power captured in recent scholarship examining the distribution of global authority between the United States, China, the Russia, and India - the very notion of global leadership is diffused; consensus is the exception, not the rule. Within this framework, Trump's tariff regime signals the limits of transactional diplomacy and the persistence of hegemonic instincts in American foreign policy.
For India, the tariffs and associated penalties land at the intersection of strategic autonomy and economic resilience. New Delhi has long refused to be drawn into binary alignments whether through military blocs, digital alliances, or trade regimes dominated by any one power. Its decision to continue purchasing discounted Russian oil and advanced military systems, such as the S-400, is rooted not in ideological preference but in sovereign necessity. This refusal to yield to American pressure is not unique to the current moment; it has defined India's foreign policy posture for decades, from its stance during the Cold War to its leadership in the Global South today. The recent statement delivered by the Ministry of External Affairs of India on the United States and the European Union's continued trade with Russia in critical commodities, and energy despite publicly backing Ukraine in its war further highlights the hypocrisy of the West and India's independent posture.
Not Just A Partner
That very strategic independence is precisely what grates on US policymakers. Whether it is Trump or any future or previous administration, Washington increasingly views India not just as a partner in containing China but as a potential challenger in its own right. The contradictions are hard to ignore. The US wants India to be strong, but not too strong. It seeks partnership but under its own terms. Yet India is unwilling to play second fiddle. That is one reason it has refused to purchase F-35 fighter jets, apart from financial and technical considerations. Buying into that ecosystem would entail long-term dependencies that sit uneasily with India's vision of indigenous defense development and diversified procurement.
This underlying tension, exposed so clearly by the latest tariffs, is likely to prompt India to reassert its foreign policy autonomy even more firmly. In the short term, it may lead to pragmatic cooperation with Russia and China not as an alliance of shared values, but as a tactical arrangement born of mutual interest in resisting US overreach. The trilateral cooperation also called Troika is visible in forums like the BRICS, and recent energy and payment infrastructure discussions reflects this logic. Even in its recent engagements with ASEAN and African partners, India is laying the groundwork for a more diversified and less US-centric global economic posture.
A Strategic Pivot
It would be naive, however, to interpret this as India pivoting fully eastward. New Delhi remains deeply invested in its strategic partnership with Washington particularly in the areas of defense interoperability and technology transfer. But it is also making clear that this partnership cannot be predicated on obedience. The world has moved beyond the 20th-century frameworks of alliance and alignment. Today, India seeks convergence without dependence, cooperation without compliance.
What the tariff episode makes abundantly clear is that the US-India relationship is bounded not just by temporary irritants but by structural competition. Both nations are democratic, diverse, and ambitious. But their visions of global order differ. Washington still sees itself as the indispensable power. India, meanwhile, sees itself as an indispensable alternative especially for the Global South, which it increasingly seeks to represent in global fora.
A Blunder In The Making?
In this context, punitive trade measures are not just poor policy but they are strategic miscalculations. They risk alienating one of the few partners with the capacity and legitimacy to balance China in Asia. They may also accelerate India's determination to shape global rules rather than simply follow them - from digital governance to payments infrastructure to climate negotiations. India's efforts to build sovereign technology stacks, resist foreign data colonialism, and push for multipolar norms in international institutions are all part of this broader arc.
As the architecture of international order shifts, India will neither be contained nor co-opted. It will contest the terrain, assert its priorities, and demand equal footing. And that, ultimately, is what the quadripolar world demands of every great power: the ability to live with others who do not think, act, or align exactly as one would wish. The faster Washington comes to terms with this, the more fruitful the US-India partnership can become.
But if it continues to treat rising powers as strategic dependents rather than equals, it risks not only losing a partner but pushing India closer to its rivals. Not out of ideological affinity, but out of pragmatic necessity. In today's world, that is more than a diplomatic misstep. It is a geopolitical failure.
(S. Yash Kalash is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and an expert in strategy, public policy, digital technology and financial services. He has a distinguished track record advising governments and the private sector on emerging technologies.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
