In the times of flux, there are only fleeting moments of diplomatic clarity. They have to be worked at harder. Such efforts often come from a firm mooring, a settled code that cuts through the maze. Of late, India has been trying to work its way through several such riddles. The latest one is US President Donald Trump signaling a possible easing of trade tensions with New Delhi and resumption of talks around it. Even if India has welcomed the change in tone, it would be careful in treading on the unsteady turf of utterances across the Atlantic. In taking the process forward, there are many notes of caution that India has to take into account. At the same time, New Delhi has to also navigate the vagaries of a changing world order. 

There are a few clear subtexts to such notes – the timing being the most vital one. The last two weeks were marked by India showing resolve to take the US action of imposing high tariffs in its stride. The fact that New Delhi put its foot down on making some key concessions to Washington factored in some short-term pain to live with. In marking those red lines, India braced to face some difficulties in a few sectors of its global trade while protecting other sectors from being swamped. That’s an obvious cost-benefit line of economic reasoning, but the far more important point lay somewhere else. And that had much to do with the continuity of India’s self-perception as an independent presence in the global order. New Delhi’s decision to assert its own say in having oil trade ties with Moscow was part of this. 

In resisting the pressure from Washington, the larger point New Delhi made was also about the national capacity to withstand pain and ride out the storm. This is as important as the messaging about valuing the country’s sovereign decision-making. It is well woven into the strands of national memory and in its journey of carving an independent foreign policy. In a piece early last month, former foreign secretary Shayam Saran recounted how, in the past, India had shown staying power despite not giving in to the wishes of key powers.

“As a much weaker country, economically and militarily, India was ready to stand alone when its vital interests were threatened. In 1968, it refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT) despite immense pressure from the then superpowers. We refused to adhere to blatantly discriminatory Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1995 despite being a lone holdout”, Saran recalls. 

These decisions brought short-term pain. The sanctions that came in the wake of India’s nuclear tests in 1998 could be seen as an example. But, all that could be absorbed with the resolve that substantive gains for the national purpose far outweighed such costs.

Besides this, the expression of India’s strategic autonomy has found other ways. In pursuing multi-alignment, India’s exercise of its choices of engagement with other big powers at the SCO summit in Tianjin had its own messages to be read between the lines in Washington. Even if the Indian PM’s rapport with the Russian President was expected, the sight of an Indian leader warming up to the Chinese President would have definitely ruffled a few feathers in the US foreign policy establishment. The idea of using ties with New Delhi as a diplomatic and security counter to Beijing’s hegemonic presence in the region has been a part of Washington’s thinking about the region. 

The fact that India and China have a history and present of border disputes and multiple spheres of regional rivalry has been handy for the US policy makers. Any sign of thaw in ties between the two Asian neighbours doesn’t fit neatly with Washington’s outlook for the region. Over the last few weeks, however, New Delhi and Beijing have made some moves to build on the progress made in de-escalation talks and explore reciprocity of interest on some issues. This is far from becoming a friendly reset; the core issues of border dispute still linger, and so do deep misgivings between the neighbours. But, there seems to be a renewed interest in steering the ties from stark hostility to a measured state of “competitive co-existence”. This is a reasonable expectation that both countries seem to have, firmly recognising that there can’t be any ambitious turnaround in their relations anytime soon. Even this degree of understanding between the neighbours isn’t what would presently please Washington. 

It’s unclear what prodded the US President to revisit his views on trade ties with India. But the evidence of India using its elbow room in a multipolar world seems a plausible reason, and so is the thaw in Beijing-New Delhi ties. In revived trade talks with the US, it is also unclear if India has a new set of economic leverage. At the same time, New Delhi will be wary of the inconsistencies that abound in the Trump administration’s line on bilateral trade.

Such unpredictability also comes from President Trump’s vacillations. That has become a feature of his bid to showcase transactional statesmanship. That’s why India would be cautious in reading too much too early in what the US President is signaling. In fresh rounds of trade talks, India wouldn’t lose sight of such impulses, and thus, will need to avoid jumping the gun. At the same time, New Delhi would be alert to the danger of Washington using unpredictability as leverage. The uncertainty can’t be allowed to be used as a bargaining chip. One of the reassuring anchors for India is that it has already made its red lines known to the US administration – both in terms of global trade and key tenets of its independent foreign policy. 

In the early years of the current century, many commentators saw the progress in Indo-US relations through the theoretical prism of “complex interdependence”. But there have been phases when India had to remind the US that this framework can’t be reduced to mean unilateral dependence. This is particularly important in how India sees itself as a sovereign actor in global politics and New Delhi’s independent policy-making. In the current strains on trade ties with Washington, India has made the larger point of its national capacity to endure pain in pursuit of its vital interests and guarding sovereign decision-making. In the changing dynamics of great power competition, if not its shifting sands, New Delhi will continue to use these elements as its anchors for clarity in framing its response as well as action.

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.