Shyam Saran writes: India has to stand up to Trump

Indian Express

3 days ago

Donald Trump was supposed to be good for India in his second presidency, and many rooted for him during the US presidential elections. He has turned out to be a nightmare. Trump has not only unleashed a trade war, but is also deploying commercial instruments for geopolitical ends. He has bluntly declared that trade will now be used to compel countries to bend to the US's will. Resistance will invite penalties. Trump is not only targeting India on its trade surplus and alleged high tariffs but threatening penalties on our pursuing relations with Russia, with Iran and our membership of the BRICS plus. We cannot treat his actions as only driven by trade. These actions threaten India's core interests, its ability to follow a policy of strategic autonomy, which every government, irrespective of its political colour, has remained wedded to since Independence. We have enjoyed international credibility and respect precisely for our adherence to this policy and our willingness to go it alone, if necessary, to uphold our national interest. We should not treat the current disruption in India-US relations as just a trade dispute. It is much more than that. What he has inflicted on India is of a piece with his 50 per cent tariff on Brazil for the indictment of its former President Jair Bolsonaro through a legal process.
It would be interesting to see whether he will slap similar tariffs and penalties on China for continuing to buy Russian oil or for supporting Palestine. Or for continuing to trade with Iran, including its large purchases of Iranian oil. If he ducks that, in the case of China, it would be apparent that Trump's reluctance to confront China is more because Beijing refuses to be bullied. China's exposure to the US market is much greater than India's. India-US trade volume in goods and services in 2024-25 was $186 billion, and this represents just over 10 per cent of our total external trade volume. US-China trade in goods was worth $582.4 billion in 2024, according to the US Trade Representative's office, with US exports at $143.5 billion and imports from China at $438.9 billion. If the size of the trade surplus a country has with the US and access to the Chinese market are factors, then China should be Trump's number one target. But he has backed down in the face of Chinese restrictions on rare metals and magnets, which are critical to the US high-tech and defence sectors. While China knows it will be seriously hit by high US tariffs and sanctions, it is willing to suffer the pain because, being a bully itself, it is aware of the downside to submitting to bullying by others.
What are the options open to India?
The first order of business is to recognise that under Trump, India-US relations are becoming progressively adversarial. Submitting to his exaggerated demands, which are now political as well as economic, would severely undermine India's national interests. We cannot give any country a veto over which countries India should or should not partner with. While we should continue to remain engaged in trade negotiations and aim for a deal which brings mutual and not one-sided benefits, we should firmly reject diktats on how India should run its foreign policy.
Two, the very strong Indo-US cooperation that has been built up in the past two decades in intelligence cooperation, defence hardware supply and co-production and high technology cooperation, is still largely untouched. These are most valuable to India and should not be negatively impacted by any action on the Indian side.
Three, there may be analysts of the Realist School who advise submission to Trump's bullying tactics so as to assuage his ego and win peace. This would be damaging in the long run. Bullies treat each act of submission as a cause for demanding even greater obeisance the next time around. Do we want to be caught up in this attrition process? Resisting now and suffering some pain will avoid much greater pain in the future.
Four, we seem to underestimate our staying power. As a much weaker country, economically and militarily, India was ready to stand alone when its vital interests were threatened. In 1968, it refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) despite immense pressure from the then superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union. We refused to adhere to a blatantly discriminatory Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty in 1995 despite being a lone holdout. In climate change negotiations, we held our ground that the Rio Convention provisions must be upheld until we ourselves resiled from our principled position and accepted the Paris Climate agreement in 2015, which we now see observed more in the breach by its then apostolic champions. This experience should alert us to the danger of acquiescing to unfair and discriminatory bargains.
India has always been regarded with respect for its courage to stand up for its convictions. Most developing countries still take their cue from India. We carry credibility with them. This provides India with a significant diplomatic ballast. We should recognise and value this asset, which is undermined if we keep talking about being at the high table and consorting with top global leaders. India should never sacrifice its material interests for the symbolic status of being at the high table.
There will certainly be pain in resisting Trump, but we should be prepared to endure it. The people of India have in the past and will in the future be ready to accept sacrifice in the national interest and support a leader who makes that appeal. It is estimated that India's GDP growth will suffer a reduction of 2 percentage points from Trump's tariff tantrum. This is a small price to pay for upholding India's larger interests.
India is to host the Quad summit later this year with a Trump visit. If the US backs out from the meeting, that will imply that Indian assumptions about the Quad being an anchor of Washington's Indo-Pacific strategy may also have to be revised. One is aware that other Quad partners are seriously considering such a possibility.
The writer is a former foreign secretary