India is too consequential to be treated as a subordinate partner; and it is too independent to accept a binary world
The United States has a dilemma. It wants a strong India that will be an integral part of a US-led Western financial, technological and security ecosystem; but there’s a catch.
It is dealing—for the first time—with a country that does not see itself fitting into a US-led chain of command. For Washington, that is an irritant. Since the Second World War, it has been used to dealing in binaries: you are either with us or against us.
Russia and China fell neatly into an antagonistic pole. Europe, Asia and South America, with a few exceptions, fell into the Western pole. India is the only large economy that does not fit into either pole. It is a member of both Brics and SCO along with Russia and China. But it is also a part of the Quad along with the US, Australia and Japan, as well as the I2U2 along with the US, Israel and UAE.
This wouldn’t have mattered if India was another Brazil or South Africa. But with a GDP of $4.2 trillion in nominal terms and $19.1 trillion by purchasing power parity (PPP), as per IMF’s latest report, India is already the world’s third largest economy and a swing power.
Washington has belatedly realised that the Narendra Modi government is not a pushover like previous Indian governments. US President Donald Trump has used both charm and threats to get India into Washington’s orbit but with limited success.
While the rest of the world caved in following US tariff threats, India has refused to sign the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) that was agreed upon 20 months ago at a White House meeting between Modi and Trump.
The US is India’s largest merchandise and services export market and yet India is holding out: it won’t sign the BTA unless the US gives India tariffs that provide it an edge over regional competitors.
The ebullient US ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, said numerous times since arriving in India in January 2026 that the India-US BTA was a done deal. Industry and Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal echoed him, saying 99 per cent of the deal was done and only legal vetting remains.
Then, a few days ago, the tone changed. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said at the Munich Security Conference in New Delhi that India-US negotiations on the BTA had hit a “plateau”. US trade envoy Jamieson Greer said in Washington that the India-US deal was “not imminent”. Goyal declared that India was in no hurry to sign a deal unless the US agreed to give India competitive tariffs. Gor fell silent.
Washington isn’t used to countries defying it. Trump is especially allergic to it. The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 gives Trump the power to impose up to 100 per cent tariffs on countries that buy Russian crude. It is being kept in reserve as a sword of Damocles over India’s head.
India in response has continued, unflustered, to buy Russian oil. New Delhi has meanwhile diversified its export basket. FTAs with major countries (UK, Australia, UAE) and large regional blocs (EU, GCC) have been signed or are under final ratification.
China, which looks upon India’s rise with disfavour, is watching carefully. It knows that by 2030, India will not only be the world’s third largest economy but a significant military power. Like Washington, Beijing has cynically used Pakistan to slow or stall India’s growth. It is no secret that Beijing would prefer a Congress government in India.
On August 7, 2008, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra and Robert Vadra visited Beijing during the Olympic Games. Rahul (then Congress general secretary) signed an MoU between the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Communist Party of China (CPC). Xi Jinping, then vice-president of China, signed the MoU on CPC’s behalf. Eighteen years later, the MoU’s contents remain confidential.
Washington too would be happy with a more accommodative government in India. Rahul Gandhi’s US-based foot soldier Sam Pitroda has long established key contacts with US Congressmen. Many remember that one of Rajiv Gandhi’s first international visits was to Washington in June 1985, within months of being sworn in as prime minister.
Modi does not endear himself to Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping. The relationships with both, despite outward optics, are formal and transactional. How actively would Washington and Beijing seek a different government in New Delhi? Both recognise that a strong, growing India is a double-edged sword. But they also know that a patchwork Opposition government with inbuilt instability is unproductive for cooperation on trade and security.
The US and China have both engineered regime changes elsewhere but always in small, weak countries — Iran in the 1950s, Venezuela in the 2020s and several others over the decades. India is too big to subvert. By the 2040s, US and Chinese analysts agree, it will be part of a G3 despite the negative narrative currently being spread by India’s inimical internal ecosystem.
Those internal enemies are “persons of interest”: NGOs with US and Chinese links who would be delighted to shake things up by funding agitators of all stripes — cockroaches, journalists, activists, lawyers, and retired bureaucrats.
Modi has half of his third term left. He must discourage the sycophancy that’s building up around him. It diminishes him. Hire people of talent and integrity. There are some outstanding performers in the Union cabinet – but not enough.
When the two wars in Ukraine and Iran end, oil returns to $70, La Nina arrives as expected in 2027 to bring plentiful rain, and the stock market and rupee rally, India must be ready to grasp the opportunities that lie ahead.
India has friends in Washington but not allies. India has partners in Beijing but not friends. And at home it has enemies that can cause more damage than a local infestation of termites.
Don’t repeat the mistake of appeasing them. The message will travel in real-time to Washington and Beijing who are alert to the slightest sign of Indian weakness. Don’t give them one.
(The writer is an editor, author and publisher. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)
Source: www.firstpost.com
