Trump 2.0, India’s Strategic Dilemma and the Way Forward

One of the most significant shifts under Trump 2.0 is the erosion of trust between India and the US, largely due to the transactional nature of diplomacy that the US adopted under Trump 2.0.

Far from being isolated statements, Trump’s calculated and repeated claim of brokering a ceasefire on Operation Sindoor, his veiled warning to the tech giant Apple CEO for not investing in India, his call to big tech firms against hiring of Indians, Trump’s broader immigration policies, his reference to India as a ‘dead’ economy — signal more than just Trump’s frustration with market access in India, but a larger plan to undermine India’s bid to rise as an important global power.

This antagonism is striking, particularly when compared to Trump’s comparatively restrained tone on China. Trump’s confrontational posture has introduced a new volatility in Indo-US relations, leaving New Delhi in a delicate situation at a time when it is already navigating a tense and complex relationship with Beijing.

Trump’s tough talks, often amounting to hostility, have left India uncertain about the US's reliability as an important strategic partner. India, for obvious reasons, cannot expect support from China, although India is working very hard to deal with a hard nut like China with utmost caution.

Despite clear intelligence suggesting that China provided real-time military support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, the Indian government has refrained from publicly calling out Beijing.

Lt Gen Rahul R Singh said that ‘China used the conflict as a live lab’ to test its weapons and tactics. But India showed prudence in not criticising China about its role in Operation Sindoor.

Moreover, China’s economic coercion has become increasingly visible in the recent past. After choking rare earth magnet exports to India, China recently stopped export of specialty fertilizer and tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to derail India’s mega infrastructure projects like the Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor and India’s development strategy. Rare earth magnets are essential in the production of electronic products and electric vehicles.

By denying their export to Indian firms, China is slowing down India’s ambitions in high-tech manufacturing, a key pillar of the ‘Make in India’ and Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) initiatives.

This is happening at a time when India is actively attempting diplomatic engagement with China. While New Delhi continues to emphasise strategic restraint and regional stability, both Washington and Beijing appear increasingly willing to test India’s patience and capabilities.

Thus, the emerging dynamics under Trump 2.0 mark a moment of strategic disillusionment for India. With growing doubts about America’s reliability as a dependable partner and unrelenting pressure from China, India finds itself navigating a restricted corridor of diplomatic options.

The US-India relationship, once heralded as a defining partnership of the 21st century, now risks being reduced to a series of transactional exchanges devoid of long-term strategic coherence.

To safeguard its interests, India must reassess its foreign policy options, reinforce indigenous capabilities, strengthen regional ties, and pursue a more diversified multi-alignment strategy that not only anticipates immediate threats but also contributes to shaping a multi-polar world order that diminishes the negotiating power of either India or China.

India’s foreign policy has exhibited resilience on critical occasions to maneuver through the difficult circumstances of global politics, and it is likely to navigate successfully the complexities posed by the Trump administration right now.

India’s patient engagement with the US amidst Trump’s persistent whimsicality, cautious diplomacy with long-standing adversary China, and India’s strategic outreach to countries across regions reflect a calibrated approach. These actions indicate that India is on the right track to weather current challenges and emerge stronger in the evolving geopolitical landscape.

 

(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)