Velvet Gloves, Tariff Fists

The US’s punitive tariffs on India reveal an old imperial reflex that risks weakening a critical partnership in a shifting global order.

Call it swagger, call it hooliganism, or dress it up as mafia tactics in a velvet glove, the effect is the same. The imperial mindset persists, even if the trappings have changed. Recent political wrangling in America over tariffs evokes memories of a more parochial tyranny: the local strongman who decided where the neighbourhood festival pandal would be erected, who would preside over the worship, and how much every shopkeeper and household must ‘donate.’

If you defy him, one might find manure at the doorstep in the morning and drunken youths jeering outside by nightfall.

On the international stage, the script is similar, only the stakes are higher. Dominant powers dictate the commercial and diplomatic choices of smaller states, cloaking coercion in the rhetoric of humanitarianism. The weak are encouraged to flatter their overlord - sometimes in hope of medals and moral posturing - rather as a street gang might try to recast a bully as a modern-day Robin Hood. The Peace Prize, after all, has on occasion graced the same hands that have harboured extremists complicit in massacres, such as those of Hindus in Bangladesh.

Set aside such moral inversions and consider instead America’s latest tariff gambit. Washington’s ‘secondary tariffs’ strike at the heart of another country’s sovereignty, as if the target were a mere vassal, compelled to align its friendships and trade flows with the whims of the ‘dominant country.’

The world has changed since the high noon of 20th-century imperialism. Democracies have multiplied; global supply chains bind economies together. Yet the bullish mentality of some foreign-policy circles in Washington remains unchanged. Even within America, there is unease at the spectacle. Gregory Meeks, a Democratic congressman, has condemned the 50 percent tariffs slapped on India. Such moves, he warned, “endanger two decades of effort to forge a robust partnership between Washington and New Delhi. Our ties run deep, and every dispute must be resolved according to our democratic values, and with mutual respect.”

Nor is the criticism confined to Capitol Hill. Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official, has been scathing. It was folly, he argues, for Donald Trump to target India over tariffs while America continues to import uranium hexafluoride and minerals from Russia, and gas from Azerbaijan (largely sourced from Russia or Iran). Rubin goes further by saying that PM Modi’s decisions in India’s national interest, he says, have become “historic milestones.” America, he insists, “will learn to deal with this.”

The backlash is not merely rhetorical. At least five lawsuits have been filed in American courts against the president’s tariff policies, brought by actors ranging from small firms to entire states. Plaintiffs include VOS Selection Inc., Learning Resources Inc., and the states of California and Oregon, with cases lodged in venues from the Court of International Trade to federal district courts. These suits allege that the tariffs do not just wound foreign partners but hurt American businesses and consumers too.

Behind the courtroom skirmishing lies a bigger truth: in the 21st century, economic diplomacy is a two-way street. India’s economy may not yet rival America’s in absolute size, but its rapid growth gives it leverage. The country already enjoys free-trade agreements (FTAs) with 13 partners, including Japan, South Korea, ASEAN members, Australia, the UAE, Mauritius, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Chile, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway, accounting for more than $200bn in trade. The ink is nearly dry on an India–UK FTA, projected to add another $120bn over the next five years. Negotiations with the EU are gathering pace, with the aim of concluding by the end of 2025.

Such deals are not mere window-dressing. They promise India greater market access for its agricultural produce, pharmaceuticals, textiles, gems, jewellery and machinery, while lowering import costs for foreign goods from precision tools to consumer electronics. For India’s policymakers, they are a means to offset any losses from American tariffs. Michael Kugelman of the South Asia Institute is blunt in saying that India should respond to the tariff crisis by “rapidly deepening free trade with markets like the EU and ASEAN.” That process is already under way.

India’s negotiating stance is clear. Partnerships will be grounded in equality, not deference. As New Delhi diversifies its trade links and bolsters its manufacturing and services sectors, the world is beginning to recognise a strategic reality: India is a vast ocean best left undisturbed. It has the capacity, if provoked, to send waves crashing far beyond its own shores.

This is the larger point lost in the bluster of punitive tariffs. Economic coercion may yield tactical concessions, but it corrodes trust and pushes the targeted country into the arms of other partners. For America, alienating India makes little strategic sense. The two countries share an interest in countering Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific, expanding defence co-operation, and securing supply chains in critical minerals and technology. Tariffs, by contrast, undermine these shared aims, giving Beijing space to exploit the rift.

The parallel with the neighbourhood bully holds in another way. Strongmen rarely reckon with the long-term costs of their dominance. Fear buys short-term compliance; respect sustains alliances. In an era when economic weight is diffusing away from the West, the ability to persuade matters more than the power to punish. If Washington persists in wielding its economic might as a cudgel, it will find fewer allies willing to fall into line.

India, for its part, appears in no mood to be cowed. Its trade diversification, growing economic heft and domestic political consensus on sovereignty give it the means to weather the tariff storm. America’s velvet glove, it seems, conceals a fist that is not as invincible as it once was.

In the end, the lesson is as old as diplomacy itself. Coercion breeds resistance; partnership breeds influence. America’s choice will determine whether India remains a natural ally or becomes another nation learning to live without it.

(The writer is a senior journalist and political analyst based in Patna. Views personal.)