Between Tariffs and Tug-of-War: India at the Geopolitical Crossroads

By Sanjeev Oak

As Washington sharpens its focus on decoupling India from China, Trump’s envoy signals urgency on a trade pact—while clarifying America’s stance on Russian oil. This is more than commerce; it’s a strategic gambit to reshape Asia’s power balance.

In Washington’s latest diplomacy lexicon, three phrases recur often: “pull India away from China”, “trade deal in reach”, and “crystal clear on Russian oil”. At his confirmation hearing, Sergio Gor, Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to India, set the tone: trade disputes are nearly resolved, but America insists India stop buying Russian oil. Underneath these polished statements lies a complex set of pressures, choices and risks for India — a nation balancing strategic autonomy with economic necessity.

“America wants India siding less with China — but wants us buying less oil from Russia too.”

U.S. Strategy: Leverage, Threats and Alliances

Gor didn’t mince words. The United States sees India not as a bystander, but as a crucial actor in its emerging Indo-Pacific strategy. “Pulling India away from China” is now official U.S. foreign policy language. Trade tensions, especially U.S. tariffs on Indian goods, are leveraged to achieve not only economic but strategic goals: energy alignment, geopolitical signaling, joint strength against adversarial influence.

At the same time, Washington’s condition is stark: either India ceases—or at least drastically reduces—its purchase of Russian oil or face further repercussions. The 50% tariff levied on many Indian exports is partly a penalty for energy trade with Moscow. The message is clear: energy calculus now equals diplomatic loyalty.

“We’re not that far apart on a deal… but stopping Russian oil purchases is a top priority.”

India’s Tightrope: Autonomy Under Pressure

For New Delhi, the challenge is to resist being cornered into aligning too neatly with either side. India has always maintained that its energy policy is one rooted in national interest—affordability, logistics, and supply stability—not in proxy wars. Yet, the United States’ expectation that India publicly aligns with its stance on Russia puts pressure on that narrative.

India’s purchases of Russian crude are defended as essential to energy security. During global supply shocks and soaring oil prices, Russia offered discounts. India argues that many Western countries continue certain types of trade with Russia—even if politically they condemn Russian actions. Thus, the Indian counterargument is that U.S. pressure should be consistent, not selectively punitive.

Tariffs, Trade Disputes, and the Deal That eludes

The U.S. has imposed steep tariffs on Indian goods—some reciprocal, some in response to the Russian oil issue. But Gor claims India and U.S. are “not that far apart” in resolving trade disputes. Commerce barriers, non-tariff protections, agriculture and dairy sector issues are on the table.

But progress depends on India making concessions—perhaps lowering trade barriers, opening up markets, or changing regulatory norms. Such moves risk domestic backlash. For example, protection of small farmers and local industries has long been a political promise. Any deal that dilutes those protections will be tricky.

China, the Elephant in Every Room

When U.S. officials say “pull India away from China”, they are acknowledging China’s central place in the strategic equation. India’s recent efforts to reset ties with China, meeting President Xi Jinping, attending multilateral forums, speak to this delicate balancing act.

The U.S. wants India not merely neutral but aligned — in rhetoric and policy. Dispute border, trade, tech dominance, supply chains — all these are chess pieces. India’s strategic interest has always been non-aligment or independent alignment: maintaining sovereignty of decision while engaging multiple powers. The U.S. push, though forceful, underestimates the domestic political cost of perceived subservience.

“We expect more from India than we do from others—because India is seen not just as partner but as strategic pivot.”

Risk, Pushback, and India’s Response

India is pushing back. Officials have reaffirmed that energy decisions are made for India’s people. India’s continued imports of Russian oil—even as it engages in trade negotiations with the U.S.—are defended as being driven by affordability and supply, not ideological alignment.

There is risk, though. If the U.S. demands too much, or treats India as if its policy options are binary, it could alienate New Delhi. Friction over tariffs already threatens trade volumes, supply chains, investment flows. If India feels cornered, it may accelerate closer ties with Russia, diversify away from U.S. influence, or use multilateral forums to challenge U.S. pressure.

Strategic Stakes and the Path Forward

For India, the way ahead requires deft diplomacy:

1. Diversify options: India may need to hedge—not rely entirely on U.S. demands. Russian oil, Middle Eastern suppliers, sustainable energy—all need to be managed with flexibility.
2. Conditional alignment: Collaborations with the U.S. can advance — in trade, tech, defense — but must not be at the cost of domestic priorities or sovereignty.
3. Win public support: Any trade agreement or tariff rollback needs domestic consensus: media, industry, farmers need to see the benefits.
4. Multilateral leverage: India’s voice in BRICS, Quad, SCO, G20 can be used to push back on unfair expectations or double standards.

Editorial Verdict

The U.S. envoy’s remarks are a signal, not a masterstroke. Washington is trying to reweave the global order — with India as a linchpin. But strategic pressure cloaked in trade demands comes with a cost. India must navigate these waters with agility: accepting cooperation without yielding strategic autonomy.

If India bends too far, it risks losing leverage. If it resists too bluntly, it risks isolation or punitive tariffs. The ideal path lies in maintaining balance—doing business with all, taking principle where possible, pushing back where necessary.

“Alignment under pressure is not alignment; it is pressure-induced drift.”

India’s moment is not just about trade deals or tariffs—it’s about choosing what kind of global actor it wants to be. And for now, New Delhi seems determined not to be pushed into a corner.

Why This Matters

• Strategic autonomy tested: U.S. demands reveal how energy policy and trade are now central to geopolitical alignment.
• Economic risk: Tariffs affect exports, jobs, and investment; misuse of leverage can provoke retaliation or loss of multilateral credibility.
• India’s global positioning: Balancing ties with China and Russia while maintaining U.S. engagement shapes India’s future diplomacy.
• Domestic stakes: Farmers, industries, consumers will bear the cost of any concessions. Internal consensus will define stability in this deal.