You must have seen that India reacts very softly to any action taken against us; we don’t rush for assertive actions for example when the USA imposed tariffs on countries like China and Canada, they responded with tariffs, and when Donald trump imposed 50% tariffs on India, among the highest in the world, we did not impose any counter tariffs. When Donald Trump insulted president Lula Da silva of Brazil, they reciprocated in the same way. But when it comes to India, when he called us a dead economy along with Russia, we haven’t even replied to it. Do you find it strange that a country like india with so many resources and cards to play, stays silent why don’t we take some hard steps? So come on, let’s deep dive into indian foreign policy.
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY: SOFT POWER , STRATEGIC AUTONOMY AND CALCULATED DIPLOMACY
Since independence, India’s foreign policy has been guided by the long-standing principles of non-alignment and cultural diplomacy. Early leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru chose the way of non-alignment between the Cold War blocs, emphasizing sovereignty and morals .This legacy of non-alignment and Mahatma Gandhi’s ideals of non‑violence created a tradition ofrestraint: India sought to influence others through attraction (its ideas, values and culture) rather than through confrontation. India often prefers quiet diplomacy: it quietly asserts its interests through multilateral forums or back-channel talks rather than public showdowns.
Strategic Autonomy and Multi-Alignment and their challenges
In the post–Cold War era, India’s approach evolved into what policymakers call strategic autonomy and “multi-alignments.” Rather than joining any single alliance, India balanced ties with all major powers. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy “represents continuity more than change,” building a “diverse network of partnerships” to balance relations with Russia, China and the United States of America. India has long sought to remain non-aligned. Under Narendra Modi, it has embraced a variation called ‘multi-alignment,’ which allows the country to maintain good ties with all sides. India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has explicitly stressed the “need for strategic autonomy” and the expansion of a multipolar world. In his vision, India should be a “Vishwa Bandhu” (world‑friend) – a nation that cultivates the maximum number of friends. This means New Delhi avoids hard-line alignment with any one power and prefers to keep diplomatic channels open even with rivals. A multi-alignment policy, however, comes with some strategic and diplomatic challenges. For example, during the ongoing Russian-Ukraine War, western countries isolated Russia with sanctions, and they also forced India to isolate Russia even the recent 25% additional tariffs imposed by the USA on India is because we are importing crude oil from Russia and according to west, India is funding the Russia-Ukraine war. As a result, we are being targeted by western countries at various levels for not cooperating with them to break off ties with Russia. We have absorbed all of the pressure. These are some of the challenges India faces in maintaining good relations with all the major world powers and maintaining strategic autonomy.
CONTRAST WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
When the Trump administration imposed tariffs on China they dealt with them through systematic responses. China’s immediate response was to match U.S. tariff hikes on a like-for-like basis. By imposing 34% tariffs (and later higher) on U.S. goods, China signals that it will resist and is ready for confrontation. This symmetric retaliation helps China avoid being seen as “acquiescing” and reinforces its negotiating posture. China has imposed export curbs on several rare earth metals. Rare earths are strategically important (for tech, defense), giving China leverage. Restricting these exports raises the cost for U.S. companies dependent on Chinese supply chains or forces them to find alternative suppliers
— a potentially costly and time-consuming shift. Rather than a blanket retaliation on all U.S. goods, China is targeting key US exports such as agriculture to maximize its political effect. By hurting U.S. farmers (or other politically sensitive producers), China may hope to foment domestic U.S. political pressure on the administration to moderate tariffs. At home this translates into a cautious, pragmatic style. For example, when the US announced “reciprocal” tariffs on Indian imports in 2025, New Delhi’s response was not immediate retaliation but measured. India’s trade ministry pledged to study the tariffs’ impact and pursue a trade deal while protecting its domestic . It quietly consulted industry and exporters, and even agreed to lower some import duties on US goods to ease the dispute (e.g. on motorcycles, wines, telecom). In public comments, Indian officials voiced dismay at the US move – calling it “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable” – but also emphasized dialogue. India objected forcefully in diplomatic terms but did not engage in tit-for-tat escalation. But how we could have responded to give a tough message to USA for understanding this we have to understand why US-INDIA relations have improved from sending career battle groups to support Pakistan in 1971 to doing multiple military exercises with india us-india relations have come a long way The main reason is China, which has become the world’s factory and has a strong economy, is on its way to becoming a military superpower, and is challenging the United States hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region, so the US needs a partner in South Asia to counter china in Indo-Pacific.India have the potential to become their partner in Indo-Pacific, Through years of diplomatic efforts by various US presidents, India and USA have cooperated in all sectors whether it be economic, diplomatic or military. Over the years USA have signed various agreements with india for military cooperation for example:- BECA ,LEMOA, COMCASA Suppose we target these agreements to send a stern message to the USA that bullying india economically will have grave consequences, but our current government didn’t choose to use this agreements as a leverage to negotiate the trade war. But we choose other ways to lower the economic impact of these tariffs By November 2025, Reuters reported that India was “avoiding the worst impact” of the 50% US tariffs and was “ready to wait” for a deal, rather than immediately. India even diversified its export markets (seeking new buyers in Europe, Africa, etc.) and offered targeted relief measures at home like GST cuts , instead of slapping counter‑tariffs. In short, India’s handling of the trade clash reflected economic pragmatism and a desire to resolve issues through negotiation, consistent with its strategic autonomy. To some extent, India has been able to lower the impact of US tariffs as our GDP increased by 8.2% compared to 7.4% projected for the second quarter of financial year 2025-2026.
WHY INDIA CHOOSE THE OTHER WAY RATHER THAT TIT FOR TAT
Since India is the fastest growing economy in the world there are various things that we need to achieve and that will require a multi-alignment strategy. Currently we are not in a position to engage US in a direct trade war which could hurt exporters and suppliers and moreover that will increase the burden on our own citizens. We cannot respond like China because we do not possess the same factors that can be used as leverage as we are not at par with China and our goods production capacity is not at their level. We don’t export much to the USA as compared to China. In financial year 2024, US-China trade was roughly 660 billion US dollars. It is 3 times then US-INDIA TRADE which was 212 billion dollars during FY2024. So if we took that way of counter tariffs on US goods that would also damage our economy. Another reason could be that these tariff wars are short term because the current tariff war doesn’t fit in the long-term US-India relations. Once the current administration changes, India-USA relations will be on track just like India-Canada relations did. We are on a path of becoming an economic giant and that will come with patience and caution. So every measure taken should be calculated and should be taken with a thing of long-term vision in the mind.
IS INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY TURNING ASSERTIVE FROM DIPLOMATIC?
Every change in this ever-evolving world has its own geopolitical implications. Recent regime change in Bangladesh and their anti-India stance is preparing a third front for India. They are increasing their cooperation with Pakistan and China. By their recent actions , we can figure out that they are hostile towards India, and during operation sindoor we saw cooperation between Türkiye, Pakistan, and China. Our response to our adversaries’ hostilities indicates a slight shift in our policies. Earlier, we used to avoid selling our state-of-the-art weapons to the countries that have a dispute with china to appease china now we are open to providing our anti-ship missiles like brahmos and other weapons to countries like the Philippines and other asean countries that have disputes with china in the south China Sea . That is the response of the weapons supplied by China to Pakistan. In the case of Türkiye, where they are providing drones and other support weapons to Pakistan along with diplomatic support in international forums, we are improving our relations with Cyprus, and recently no Indian official attended the national day celebration of Türkiye in india. In order to counter Türkiye, we are increasing our military cooperation with Cyprus. India suddenly increased the frequency of military exercises in the northeastern region, and recently the Indian army added three new garrisons near the India-Bangladesh border, signalling their military preparedness to tackle any eventuality against us. We are going at a steady and calculated pace to safeguard our interests in the region, but more could have been done.
