US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose steep tariffs on Indian imports stands out as one of the most arbitrary disruptions in recent trade policy. Initially set at 25% and later doubled to 50%, these duties make India one of the most heavily taxed US trading partners, exceeding even China. Although Trump cited India’s imports of Russian oil as justification, the sequence of events points to a policy lacking consistency or strategic clarity. At the Alaska summit with President Putin, no agreement was reached, after which Trump remarked he would “not think” about Russian oil purchases for some weeks, shifting focus instead to President Zelensky and Europe’s lack of engagement with the conflict. These remarks underscore that the tariffs on India were not solely about Russian oil or the Ukraine war, but part of a broader, more transactional approach aimed at forcing concessions in trade.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs has rightly described such tariffs as “stupid” and “self-destructive of US foreign policy interests.” They violate international law and risk undermining America’s partnerships in Asia at a time when Washington has long sought to balance China’s rise. Even US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted that the penalties could escalate further depending on the outcome of the Alaska talks, highlighting the erratic basis on which these measures were applied. Far from advancing American economic goals, these decisions have introduced uncertainty and revealed the absence of a coherent strategy.

For India, the economic exposure is significant though not catastrophic. An assessment by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) estimates that 70% of India’s goods exports to the US, worth $60.85 billion, are now at risk. The hardest-hit sectors- textiles, gems and jewellery, shrimp, and auto parts- are labour-intensive and central to employment, facing steep disadvantages compared to competitors such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Pakistan. While pharmaceuticals, energy products, and semiconductors have been spared, the tariffs could still shave up to half a percentage point from India’s GDP growth, posing challenges to an economy already navigating global headwinds. Some analysts argue that these penalties amount to a quasi-embargo on bilateral trade.

Yet, New Delhi’s response has been notably calm. Rather than retaliate in kind, the Indian government has reiterated its commitment to strategic autonomy, refusing to allow its policy to be dictated by external pressure. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emphasised that India will not compromise on the well-being of its farmers, fisherfolk, and cattle keepers, even at considerable cost, thereby insulating vital domestic constituencies from trade-off politics. The Ministry of External Affairs has dismissed Washington’s targeting of Indian crude imports as “unjustified and unreasonable,” noting India’s responsibility to secure affordable energy for millions of low-income households. Indian state refiners have continued to purchase Russian oil, underscoring the principle that national energy security cannot be subordinated to foreign demands.

This stance is embedded in a broader doctrine of multi-alignment, through which India cultivates diverse partnerships while avoiding entanglement in formal alliances. Rather than dilute this policy, Trump’s actions have only strengthened India’s resolve to pursue it more forcefully. The BRICS grouping has emerged as a critical platform in this regard. Expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the UAE, and Indonesia, BRICS today represents nearly half the global population and a rising share of world GDP and trade. For India, BRICS is less an ideological counterweight to the West than a practical “lever to counter disruptive unilateralism.” At recent summits, member states condemned unilateral tariff measures as inconsistent with WTO rules and as threats to global supply chains. PM Modi has used these forums to highlight how the Global South has been handed little more than symbolic gestures on climate finance, technology access, and sustainable development, arguing for a new multipolar and inclusive order.

Economically, India has already taken steps to mitigate the impact of US pressure by promoting local-currency trade. The Reserve Bank of India has allowed 100% of bilateral trade with BRICS partners to be settled in rupees via Vostro accounts, directly challenging the dominance of the dollar in regional commerce. While New Delhi is not as committed as Beijing or Moscow to full de-dollarisation, this initiative strengthens resilience and reduces exposure to financial coercion. Such measures also dovetail with India’s efforts to diversify supply chains by deepening trade with Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America, ensuring that any single country’s actions cannot dictate the trajectory of its economy. In parallel, discussions around the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) have gained traction, with the tariffs only sharpening New Delhi’s resolve to pursue such initiatives. Like BRICS, IMEC represents a structural effort to de-risk and diversify supply chains, reducing dependence on unilateral actors and embedding India more deeply in multipolar networks of trade.

Paradoxically, Trump’s tariffs may also be reshaping India’s uneasy ties with China. For years, New Delhi and Washington had strengthened cooperation through platforms such as the Quad to manage Beijing’s growing influence. Yet, by targeting India, Trump has inadvertently nudged it toward a tentative rapprochement with China. After years of frosty exchanges following the 2020 border clashes, the two sides have resumed dialogue, held formal talks on boundary issues, and explored Chinese investment in India’s technology sector. Russia has also welcomed these steps within the broader BRICS framework. While mistrust and strategic competition remain, particularly given China’s ties to Pakistan, India and China now have stronger incentives to manage their rivalry rather than allow it to escalate.

These developments raise broader questions about the direction of US policy in Asia. Trump’s transactionalism risks alienating precisely those partners Washington once saw as crucial to its Indo-Pacific strategy. Sachs has argued that such measures will “isolate the United States geopolitically” and “strengthen the BRICS and other groups.” The evidence already points in this direction: the tariffs have consolidated rather than fractured the Global South, reinforced India’s role in multipolar coalitions, and highlighted the limits of coercive economic statecraft.

As the global order grows increasingly fragmented, India faces critical choices in charting its course. Should it double down on BRICS and regional currency trade as safeguards against unilateralism? How far can it deepen South-South cooperation without undermining ties to the West? Can it manage rapprochement with China while defending its Himalayan frontier? How should it balance engagement with the G7 and Quad while preserving strategic autonomy? And can today’s disruption be turned into a moment of structural realignment?

Trump’s tariffs were conceived as a lever of pressure but have become a catalyst for reflection. For India, the challenge is not merely to weather this episode but to seize it as an opportunity to redefine its place in a multipolar world. The answers to these questions will determine whether India can turn an arbitrary disruption into a moment of strategic renewal.

(The writer is a researcher interested in topics including climate governance, geopolitics, history and society. Views expressed are her personal. )