New Delhi, March 17 – US President Donald Trump may have believed that his threats of tariffs would make India back down, but a new paper by an IIM Udaipur professor argues that he got the country badly wrong.
The paper, by Professor Kunal Kamal Kumar and published in Third World Quarterly, examines the 2025 US-India clash over Russian oil and arrives at a simple conclusion: tariff pressure was used as a weapon, but it did not achieve the result that Washington wanted.
According to the paper, the US tried to pressure India into changing its policy on Russian oil by threatening steep tariffs on Indian goods. However, India did not view this as a minor diplomatic issue. For New Delhi, this was about energy security, economic stability, and national interest. When a country like India gains access to cheaper crude, it is not just a matter of foreign policy. It affects inflation, transportation, industry, and the lives of ordinary people.
Therefore, the paper argues that India’s stance was based on sovereignty, energy security, and strategic autonomy. In simpler terms, the message was clear: decisions regarding India’s energy needs would be made in Delhi, not under pressure from Washington.
This also reflects the Narendra Modi government's approach. The paper states that PM Modi's refusal to yield aligns with India's broader policy of strategic autonomy. Simply put, under PM Modi, India has tried to demonstrate that it can work with all major powers, but it will not make decisions against its own interests just because another country applies pressure.
The paper also makes an important economic point. Tariffs are often presented as a way to punish the other side. However, in reality, they also hurt the country that uses them. When the US imposes tariffs on Indian goods, American importers pay more, supply chains are disrupted, prices rise, and consumers bear the burden. Therefore, this is not just a weapon that hurts India. It can also hurt the US.
That is why the paper calls tariff threats a blunt tool. They create noise. They create pressure. But they do not always lead to surrender. In fact, they can sometimes have the opposite effect. They strengthen the target's resolve, push trade into new channels, and make the pressured country even more determined to stand on its own.
The paper points out that this dispute was not just about oil. It was also about a changing world. Countries like India are no longer willing to quietly accept Western pressure when their core interests are at stake. The old habit of using economic force to make others comply is no longer as effective as it once was.
The paper presents India's policy as pragmatism. India imports most of its crude oil. Any government in Delhi has to prioritize affordable supply, domestic stability, and the national economy. Seen from that perspective, buying discounted oil was not a reckless move. It was a practical decision made in India's interest.
The paper argues that Trump's pressure tactic had limits, that tariff wars hurt both sides, and that India's stance was rooted in a strong national interest.
In the end, the takeaway is straightforward. Trump tried to use tariff pressure to force India to back down. India did not. And according to this paper, this refusal was not a moment of defiance for the sake of optics. It was part of a larger shift in how India, under PM Modi, now deals with the world: engage with everyone, protect national interest, and maintain sovereignty and energy security.