On 06 August 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a 50% tariff on all Indian imports, instantly casting uncertainty over India-U.S. relations. While the move was seemingly connected to India’s ongoing defence and energy dealings with Russia, the broader message was clear: India’s strategic sovereignty is now being tested amidst transactional geopolitics. Trump’s actions were predictable.
His style of diplomacy, during both his presidencies, often replaces multilateralism with a show of strength. International relations, like his business and personal dealings, are guided by short-term personal gains rather than shared values or strategic interests.
As tariffs were announced, India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval arrived in Moscow, emphasising the importance of New Delhi’s multi-aligned foreign policy. This was no coincidence. It served as a diplomatic response to a coercive move and signalled that India will not be confined to singular alignments in defending its national interests.
A Sovereign Nation Must Act Sovereign
India is not a client state. It is a rising global power with the fifth-largest economy, a blue-water navy, nuclear triad capability, and a technologically advancing military-industrial base. Yet, some of its most critical defence programs remain deeply reliant on U.S. components and subsystems, a structural vulnerability that is now being weaponised.
From fighter jets and stealth frigates to light tanks and marine propulsion systems, American-origin engines and technologies are integrated into India’s most strategic platforms. This reliance not only creates potential chokepoints, both technical and political, but also risks if Washington chooses to disrupt, delay, or impose sanctions on these systems. Such actions could threaten India’s defence readiness overnight, raising serious concerns about national security. This underscores the need for caution in our strategic decisions.
Let’s look at the facts.
U.S. Engines in Indian Platforms: A Hidden Weak Spot
Zorawar Light Tank. A key project designed for high-altitude warfare in Ladakh and the Northeast, the Zorawar light tank is powered by the Cummins VTA903E-T760 engine, an American powerplant originally developed for the Abrams tank. While it’s rugged and battle-tested, India does not have control over the engine’s production, servicing, or future upgrades. In a conflict scenario, this could become a critical vulnerability.
Project 17 & 17A Stealth Frigates (Shivalik & Nilgiri Class). India’s top naval assets, its stealth guided missile frigates, are fitted with GE LM2500 gas turbines. These turbines are renowned worldwide for their performance. However, India does not have local manufacturing or licensing rights, which means issues with the U.S. could delay naval readiness or upgrades.
LCA Tejas Mk. 1 & Mk. 1A. Touted as India’s indigenous light combat aircraft, both variants of the Tejas fly on GE F404-IN20 turbofan engines. Any disruption in spare parts, servicing, or software updates — whether due to policy or politics can ground fleets or delay squadron deployments.
LCA Tejas Mk. 2 and AMCA Mk. 1. India’s future airpower plan also depends on U.S. technology. Both next-generation fighters are expected to use GE’s F414 engines. Although a co-production deal has been announced, it has not yet provided sovereign design authority or full technology transfer. That is a risk India can no longer ignore.
Strategic Partnership or Strategic Dependence?
India’s defence relationship with the U.S. has steadily grown since the early 2000s. U.S. defence giants like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Electric, and Raytheon have partnered with Indian industry players such as Tata, Mahindra, L&T, and HAL. These joint ventures and technology-sharing agreements have helped develop Indian capabilities.
However, the current crisis exposes the other side of this partnership: imbalance caused by leverage.
If economic policy can change overnight, so can the terms of defence collaboration. India must therefore ask a vital question: Can a long-term strategic partner also be a source of supply chain pressure?
The short answer: Not if India is prepared.
Lessons from 1971: Sovereignty First
History shows that India has previously faced and resisted superpower pressure. In 1971, as conflict threatened between India and Pakistan, U.S. President Richard Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger tried to pressure Prime Minister Indira Gandhi into withdrawing. They hurled insults, made veiled threats, and sent the 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal.
India did not blink
Instead, it signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and maintained its stance. The Soviet Union responded by deploying its Pacific Fleet to the region, effectively neutralising the U.S. naval threat.
The result? A decisive Indian victory, the birth of Bangladesh, and a valuable lesson: strategic sovereignty must never be compromised, not out of fear, not for friendship. India must learn from this experience and ensure its sovereignty is always protected, no matter the pressures it faces. This reassures us that India is capable of handling external pressures based on its past experiences.
The Trade Double Standard
- One of the most glaring hypocrisies behind the tariff threat is the West’s ongoing trade with Russia.
- In 2024 India traded $68.7 billion with Russia, mostly energy imports.
- The EU traded $78 billion, a significant portion of it in fossil fuels.
- The U.S. imported over $5 billion in goods and services from Russia, even while applying sanctions.
While India faces pressure to reduce its engagement with Moscow, Washington and Brussels continue their commerce quietly but steadily. This double standard reveals the selective nature of Western outrage. India must address this, not with defiance but with clarity: strategic alignment should not be based on emotional optics or one-sided expectations.
Hyper-sonics, China, and the Real Threat
India cannot afford to compromise its long-term capabilities for short-term appeasement. Russia currently leads the world in hypersonic missile development, a technology gap that India must bridge to sustain deterrence, especially as it faces a two-front threat from China and Pakistan, which are becoming increasingly coordinated in military exercises and technological cooperation.
India’s access to Russian platforms, spares, and technology, especially in legacy systems and emerging tech, remains essential for both readiness and balance. This access is crucial for India’s military capabilities and should not be compromised.
At the same time, India must invest heavily in kill chain integration from satellites and ISR assets to precision-guided weapons and electronic warfare systems. Fear of sanctions or tariffs cannot influence strategic decisions.
Policy, Not Personalities
The Trump administration has one more year remaining before the U.S. mid-primary cycle begins. Political turbulence is inevitable, and India cannot build its security strategy around the volatility of another country’s electoral calendar. Policies must endure presidents. Partnerships must survive governments.
India’s response to the U.S. tariff threat must be clear, strategic, and principle-driven. While Trump’s political persona may be loud, disruptive, and transactional, India’s response must be calm, strategic, and principled, reflecting its commitment to its national interest and strategic autonomy.
The Path Forward: Secure, Sovereign, and Strategic
India must now take bold, irreversible steps toward genuine strategic autonomy, asserting our independence and determination to secure our national interests.
- Diversify defence suppliers across France, Israel, Japan, and domestic players.
- Accelerate indigenous engine and propulsion programs, including HTFE and Kaveri.
- Localise subsystems for air, sea, and land platforms.
- Secure legacy Russian inventory and maintain relations based on realpolitik.
- Stand firm on foreign policy independence regardless of who occupies the White House.
Conclusion: The Spine Must Stay Intact
India has long projected itself as a power of consequence. That status cannot come with strategic dependency or diplomatic timidity.
India must invest in relationships, not emotions. It must partner widely, prepare deeply, and posture wisely. Above all, it must never allow any foreign leader’s tantrum to dictate its path.
In 1971, India walked out with its spine intact. In 2025, it must do so again, only this time, stronger, better prepared, and entirely in control of its national destiny.