The Rise and Fall of a Neo-colonial Bhasmasura
In Indian mythology, Bhasmasura received a formidable boon: anyone whose head he touched would turn to ashes. The danger lay not in the boon itself, but in his belief that it made him invincible. Democratic power can produce a similar illusion. When authority entrusted by voters becomes a licence to dictate to the world, a blessing begins to resemble a curse. The setback delivered to Donald Trump’s politics by America’s midterm elections recalls that ancient story. This time, no divine enchantress appeared. The voters themselves held up the mirror.
The bruising defeat handed Trump by the Democrats marks a clear shift in the balance of power. While Trump remains President, what has changed is the expectation that Congress will readily accommodate his wishes.
Trump’s rise drew strength from resentment towards established politics, economic insecurity and the feeling among ordinary citizens that nobody listened to them. He gave that discontent a voice. But articulating suffering and remedying it are different things altogether. Identifying a foreign enemy for every domestic problem may help win power; improving everyday life requires competent government. Proclamations of national greatness do not pay the petrol bill or ridiculing opponents does not bring down the rent.
Imperial Ambitions
A troubling feature of Trump’s approach is its resemblance to modern colonialism.
Earlier empires occupied territory through military conquest. Their modern counterparts can use market access, tariffs and economic dependence to constrain another country’s freedom of decision. Not every protective tariff is colonial. But when the message becomes “accept our conditions or face economic strangulation”, commercial negotiation becomes an instrument of domination. Relations between sovereign nations cannot sustainably operate as relations between a master and his dependants.
Canada offers a revealing example. It is neither a small country nor an American enemy. Yet on January 7, 2025, Trump spoke of using “economic force” to make it America’s fifty-first state. He ruled out military force against Canada but embraced economic pressure. What kind of friendship treats a neighbour’s independent existence as a bargaining chip? Dependence on American markets does not place a country’s sovereignty on sale.
Regarding Greenland and the Panama Canal, Trump declined to rule out military or economic coercion. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark; the canal concerns Panama’s sovereignty. American interest in a territory or waterway does not diminish the rights of those who live there. If even a substantial ally such as Canada faces such pressure, what reassurance is available to economically weaker nations? Here, concern about neocolonialism becomes more than a rhetorical flourish.
Tariff Deception
Misleading claims reinforced this politics of pressure. Trump repeatedly suggested that foreign countries pay American tariffs. In practice, American importers pay the duties to US customs authorities. Foreign producers may absorb part of the burden by reducing prices; importers may bear another portion, while consumers can face higher prices. Presenting tariffs as money extracted from foreigners to enrich America conceals this distribution of costs. Citizens begin asking questions when the bill for teaching another country a lesson arrives in their own shopping basket.
The claim of “reciprocity” also deserved scrutiny. The country-specific rates announced in April 2025 did not simply mirror the tariffs those countries imposed on American goods. Their calculation incorporated the relationship between America’s goods trade deficit and its imports from each country. Equating a trade deficit with foreign cheating does not change economic reality. A slogan may be simple, but simplicity purchased at the expense of truth becomes deception.
The stock-market episode was more unsettling still. On the morning of April 9, 2025, Trump posted that it was a great time to buy. Less than four hours later, he announced a ninety-day pause on higher tariffs affecting numerous countries. The S&P 500 rose approximately 9.5 per cent that day. The White House defended his message as an effort to reassure markets. Nevertheless, when the person empowered to change policy offers an investment signal before announcing that change, questions of public responsibility inevitably arise.
Shares in Trump’s own company also rose. According to PolitiFact, the increase added an estimated $415 million to his net worth in a single day. That was an increase in market valuation, not evidence that he sold shares and pocketed the proceeds. Nor does it establish that he deliberately manipulated markets to make an unlawful profit. But when a policymaker is also a financial beneficiary of a policy’s market effects, potential conflicts of interest deserve scrutiny. The boundary between public decisions and private wealth must remain visible.
Reuters also reported substantial options trades in the minutes preceding the tariff-pause announcement. Some Democratic lawmakers sought investigations. The same report acknowledged that such trades could have reflected ordinary speculation without advance knowledge. Demanding an inquiry is not the same as declaring guilt. What information was available, when transactions occurred and who benefited are questions requiring transparent answers. A superpower’s economic policy must not become a gambling table on which ordinary investors’ savings are the stakes.
Democratic oversight exists to examine how decisions were made, what advice informed them, whether consequences were assessed and whose interests were prioritised. A president whose words move markets carries responsibilities beyond those of an ordinary campaigner. Retirement funds, children’s education savings and small-business capital are not props in a political performance. Greater power demands greater accountability. Democracy cannot afford to obscure potential conflicts between the roles of national leader and influential businessman.
Voter Reckoning
Against this background, the midterm verdict acquires wider significance. Associated Press reporting identified high prices, the Iran war and concerns about government corruption among the sources of voter dissatisfaction. Not every voter acted for the same reason. Nevertheless, the outcome suggests that personal experience can outweigh official proclamations. Someone who applauds at a rally can make a different choice in the privacy of the polling booth. Democracy’s strength resides in that quiet independence.
For the wider world, this creates the possibility of relief. Decisions in Washington affect other countries’ exports, energy costs and security calculations. Trade and diplomacy become difficult under the permanent shadow of tomorrow’s threat. Claiming that the entire world has collectively breathed a sigh of relief would be an exaggeration. Yet the prospect of institutional limits on arbitrary power can reassure those unsettled by it. The hope is for American strength to be exercised more responsibly.
That hope must remain grounded in reality. The new Congress takes office on January 3, 2027. Opposition control will matter for legislation, expenditure and investigations, but presidential executive powers and the veto remain. Tariffs will not automatically disappear, nor will foreign policy change overnight. Cooperation and confrontation are both possible. Restraining power and resolving every crisis are different outcomes.
India, too, should prioritise its interests over personal admiration for foreign leaders. Whichever party dominates Washington will pursue American interests. Friendship between leaders is no guarantee of lasting trade concessions. Stable dialogue, dependable agreements and independent judgement matter more. Democrats must likewise recognise that their mandate is not a blank cheque. Discontent with an opponent does not endorse every policy of the alternative. Citizens want improvements in daily life, not an extended rehearsal for the next presidential election.
The “fall” in this verdict therefore concerns the illusion of unlimited power, rather than Trump’s complete political disappearance. The crises remain, and the institutions have further tests ahead. Yet voters have reaffirmed their ability to impose limits on those who govern them. The mythical Bhasmasura perished when he placed his hand upon his own head. In a democracy, the people can withdraw the blessing they once placed upon a ruler’s head. Every leader who forgets the source of that blessing must eventually confront the same truth.
(The writer is an advocate and a public policy analyst. Views personal.)
