When Donald Trump and Narendra Modi clasp hands, speak of “limitless potential” and declare the strength of their friendship, the optics suggest that the world is about to witness a historic breakthrough in trade relations.
The two leaders have good reasons to project this optimism. Trump, who always loves to be known as a “dealmaker,” projects confidence even when the underlying negotiations are fraught with difficulty. Modi needs to maintain India’s stature as a rising power. For that, India needs Washington’s recognition and partnership to demonstrate that New Delhi is an indispensable player in the global order.
Beneath the warm words, sharp disagreements remain. Tariffs, sanctions, and rivalries between great powers all cast a shadow on the future. Under Trump, America has doubled down on tariff diplomacy. Duties as high as 50 percent now fall on Indian imports.
These penalties are tied directly to India’s trade with Russia. For Trump, this is not simply about trade imbalances; it is about depriving Moscow of strategic oxygen in its war against Ukraine.
for Modi, the tariffs go against India’s foreign policy approach. India’s foreign policy of “strategic autonomy” is built on staying independent in global politics. These tariffs seem to challenge that careful balance.
This difference in priorities shows a deeper reality. Summit speeches may sound positive, but trade deals usually involve more than just trade. They reflect politics, power and national interests, too.
India’s strategic autonomy and Russia’s shadow
Modi’s divergence lies in the history of India’s foreign policy. Since independence, leaders like Nehru followed a path of nonalignment. Strategically, India didn’t want to be trapped in Cold War power blocs. In reality, this meant staying close to Moscow for weapons, energy, and diplomatic support. That legacy still shapes India’s approach today.
That tradition endures. Today, Russian oil sold at discounted rates fuels India’s growth and helps contain inflation. Russian arms still constitute the backbone of India’s military, from tanks to fighter jets. Abandoning Moscow under pressure from Washington not only would create immediate economic strain; it also would leave India vulnerable at a time when its security concerns with China remain acute.
This is why Trump’s attempt to use tariffs as a bludgeon risks misfiring. Unlike smaller economies, India is not easily coerced. It is the world’s fifth-largest economy and a key partner in the Indo-Pacific. A policy of strategic autonomy allows India to collaborate with Washington in defense and technology while continuing to draw on Russian resources. To demand an abrupt break with Moscow is to misunderstand the very foundation of Indian statecraft.
History offers a reminder here. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, when Washington tilted toward Pakistan, Moscow stepped in as India’s partner, vetoing UN resolutions that would have constrained New Delhi’s options. Such moments are not easily forgotten. For Indian leaders, Russia remains not just an economic partner but a strategic guarantor that has stood by India in critical hours.
Trump’s tariff maximalism and its risks
The challenge is compounded by Trump’s wider tariff agenda. He has called on the European Union to impose 100% tariffs on goods from China and India. Trump presented it as a part of grand strategy to cut off Russia’s economic support. The plan is bold, but boldness is not always synonymous with wisdom. By treating India the same as China (India’s main rival), Washington may push away one of its most important allies in Asia.
Vladimir Putin has exploited this situation quickly. He denounced it as “unacceptable” to talk to India and China in a “colonial tone.” This has a historical sensitivity. India, having suffered under colonial rule, is deeply sensitive about being treated as a subordinate nation in geopolitics. Trump’s unjustified threats could make that perception stronger. That strengthens the political narrative of Russia and China that the West seeks dominance, not real partnership.
That’s where the irony lies. Trump’s high tariff strategy might backfire. Instead of pulling New Delhi away from Moscow and Beijing, it could push India closer to them. Using trade deals to pressure others may bring quick results. But it rarely builds the kind of durable trust that anchors long-term alliances.
Between symbolism and substance
This doesn’t mean Trump and Modi can’t reach an agreement. Both leaders are masters at using symbolic victories to mask deeper structural deadlock. Modi’s ultimate imperative is to project strength at home, burnishing his image as a nationalist leader unwilling to bend before foreign pressure. Trump’s priority is different: he craves a deal he can parade on the campaign trail as proof of his negotiating prowess.
These competing aims make a sweeping accord improbable. What is more likely is a series of modest, carefully packaged understandings—perhaps an expanded purchase of American natural gas, greater market access for US firms in India’s agricultural and digital sectors, or limited agreements on defense co-production.
These steps would not solve the deeper clash between America’s sanctions-driven trade policy and India’s push for strategic independence. But they would let both sides claim success. For Trump, it would show that tariffs work. For Modi, it would prove that India can stay independent while keeping close ties with Washington.
Yet the risk of miscalculation is real. Trump’s go-it-alone style often leaves little space for compromise. If he demands that India fully give in, the talks will collapse. Modi, under pressure from political rivals who would accuse him of bowing to foreign powers, would have to push back hard. The consequences would go beyond symbolism. US-India cooperation in the Indo-Pacific would suffer and that would weaken their shared effort to counter China.
The broader lesson
The Trump-Modi tango shows how fragile the global order has become. Trade was once a bridge between nations. Now it is often used as a weapon. Alliances, too, have changed. They are no longer built only on shared values. They rest on shifting deals, leverage and necessity. India reflects this reality more clearly than most. It looks to Russia for energy. It looks to the West for markets. And it looks to itself for security – choosing an independent path.
At best, the two sides can reach a narrow truce. It may prevent a breakdown, but it will not solve the deep tensions. Diplomatic optimism can soften the mood. Yet it cannot hide the contradictions. America weaponizes trade against Russia. India seeks balance, guarding its sovereignty above all. Putin exploits the advantage and is eager to widen the gap. And in this uneasy triangle, the global order itself is being reshaped.
If even a small deal takes shape, both Trump and Modi will hail it as historic. They will present it as proof of their leadership. But if the talks collapse, the impact will spread far beyond Washington and New Delhi. It will expose the limits of America’s tariff-driven diplomacy. It will deepen the cracks within the Western camp. And it will push India further toward its own path of strategic independence.
M A Hossain is a senior journalist and international affairs analyst. His articles are also featured in the South China Morning Post, the Jakarta Post, Asian Age, the Korea Times, New Age, Modern Diplomacy, The Geopolitics, South Asia Monitor and The Daily Guardian. He may be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com
