India Is Not a Pawn in Washington’s Tariff Theatre
By Sanjeev Oak
Peter Navarro’s attempt to club India with China in Trump’s tariff narrative is both misleading and myopic. India’s trade posture is rooted in strategic autonomy, not opportunism—New Delhi has consistently resisted being reduced to a pawn in Washington’s equations.
When Donald Trump’s former trade adviser Peter Navarro frames India’s China engagement as a liability to America’s tariff war, the narrative reeks of a dated, zero-sum worldview. India’s choices are not about helping or hurting Washington; they are about preserving autonomy, economic resilience and strategic leverage.
“India is not a weak link in America’s tariff war. It is a sovereign actor recalibrating its interests in a multipolar world.”
Navarro’s Tunnel Vision
Navarro’s argument reduces India to a pawn that must be moved either toward Washington or Beijing. This caricature ignores the structural changes of the past decade: India is no longer a hesitant regional player but an emerging power with the confidence to negotiate on equal terms with both.
Washington’s transactional trade wars, first under Trump and now echoed in Republican rhetoric, seek compliance rather than cooperation. But India has lived through such pressures before—be it during the Obama administration’s push for climate concessions or Trump’s tariff threats against Indian steel and aluminium. Each time, India resisted unilateral diktats while deepening diversified trade partnerships.
The China Factor
Navarro warns of Modi–Xi dialogues undermining US pressure. Yet dialogue is not surrender; it is statecraft. India cannot afford to freeze engagement with Beijing when it shares a 3,488-km border, faces live security threats in Ladakh, and remains locked in competition across Asia. Talking to China, even amid confrontation, is not a weakness but a necessity.
“Engaging Beijing does not dilute New Delhi’s resolve; it sharpens India’s ability to manage conflict while pursuing its global ambitions.”
Strategic Autonomy, Not Alignment
What Navarro fails to recognise is that India’s core principle since independence has been strategic autonomy. This does not mean equidistance, but the freedom to act in its national interest. It explains why India can partner with Washington on defence and technology, resist China in the Himalayas, and yet maintain dialogue with both.
New Delhi’s trade diversification—linking with ASEAN, negotiating with the EU, deepening Gulf partnerships—demonstrates a playbook that is not about “choosing sides” but about expanding options. In this sense, India is less vulnerable to Trump’s tariff tantrums or Beijing’s market leverage.
America’s Misreading
By insisting India must fall neatly into Washington’s tariff coalition, Navarro underestimates the political cost of appearing as an American proxy. For Prime Minister Modi, domestic legitimacy rests on projecting strength, not submission. Washington’s public pressure only fuels nationalist resistance, eroding the very alignment Navarro seeks.
“The more America dictates terms, the less India listens. Respect, not reprimand, builds durable partnerships.”
The Bigger Picture
The real story is not whether India helps or hinders America’s tariff war with China. It is how India positions itself as a swing state in a fragmented global economy. Whether in semiconductor supply chains, digital trade, or renewable energy, India is crafting its own path—sometimes converging with Washington, sometimes diverging.
Navarro’s cold war lens misses this transformation. A transactional, tariff-driven approach cannot capture India’s aspiration to be a rule-maker, not a rule-taker, in global governance.
India will continue engaging both Washington and Beijing—not out of duplicity, but out of necessity and choice. For the US, recognising this reality is wiser than lamenting it. For New Delhi, the message is clear: strength lies not in choosing camps, but in keeping every option on the table.