Tariffs make for great television. They thump the lectern; they fire up the base. They even follow the leitmotif of Donald Trump ’s book The Art of the Deal, which is all about taking a maximal position to get the other side to bend the knee. It is not a memoir in the MAGA world; it is a recipe to follow. It is a cue for a 50 per cent wall on Indian imports, including a 25 per cent penalty for buying Russian oil. And in the echo chamber that follows, only Nikki Haley dares to say the quiet part out loud – that beefing with India would only strengthen China’s hand. Everyone else in the Republican Party, particularly those with Indian connections including Vice-President JD Vance, are conspicuous by their uncomfortable silence, blindly following the Pied Piper even if it means burning to the ground a carefully crafted, three-decade-long bond between two of the world’s noisiest democracies.
The India–US relationship has been built, block by block: supply chains bending away from China; defence ties gradually scaling up; a booming tech lattice creating shared prosperity. Suddenly, all those partnerships are facing tariff heat, directly or indirectly. Beijing is not complaining; it is openly chiding the US, calling it a bully and supporting India, forcing strategic repositioning.
Former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is protesting precisely for this reason, though she sticks out like a sore thumb in the Trump-led party. Nikki’s pitch is not merely guided by her lineage; it is steeped in cold, hard logic. India is the only democracy on this side of the world with the scale of industry, demographics and sea access to put a spanner in China’s ambitions. The perspective of people like Haley is essentially that India needs to be counselled in private and supported in public, not berated with terms like ‘cheat’ and ‘Maharaja tariffs’, as policy hawks like White House trade adviser Peter Navarro are saying.
Why Haley and why almost no one else
JD Vance, Vivek Ramaswamy , Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel among others are deeply entrenched inside the Trumpverse. JD, who has an Indian-origin wife, has already faced racist attacks and is unlikely to spend his political capital on an issue his boss is championing, perhaps out of spite for not getting credit for reportedly brokering an Indo–Pak ceasefire. As a de facto successor to Trump, Vance will be doubly careful not to strike a discordant note. Ramaswamy has already burned his fingers with his open critique of why white Americans are falling behind in the merit race. Gabbard crossed into the pro-Trump media universe after getting limited support as a war-vet-turned-conservative Democrat. Patel is a MAGA insider slowly facing heat over a bunch of issues, including the Epstein files. For many PIOs and India sympathisers in the Trump administration, 'silence' seems to be the best strategy—at least for now.
Haley can speak because she has already crossed that bridge. Former governor Haley’s political career is virtually over after an unsuccessful run for president. She has also fallen out with the US president but understands his politics after working closely in the Trump 1.0 administration. That translates to this refreshing candour, a welcome defiance among muted responses.
There is also the Indian DNA in Nimrata Randhawa, aka Nikki Haley. On her 2018 Delhi visit as UN envoy, she went to Gauri Shankar Mandir, Jama Masjid and Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib. It was not a photo-op for the annual UN postcard; it was a reminder of her roots. She also carries the small-business immigrant ethics. Helping at her parents’ store in Bamberg, South Carolina, as a teenager, the ‘proud daughter of Indian immigrants’ understands big, blunt economic tools that sound tough but miss the nuances of supply and demand.
The Indian-American voter base is too locked in on excelling in their own private lives. They are affluent but small, not focused on advocacy, and hence cannot really move the needle politically. So they have little to no power to lobby for India on this issue. It is unlikely that Indian-origin titans at Big Tech are going to pick public fights with a White House that has enough leverage to make their lives difficult. Even the mighty Tim Cook had to show a public hand of support – or rather a 24-carat gold memento – to escape the harsh punitive actions of the Trump-led ecosystem.
Where the conflict currently stands
Trump and his surrogates have camouflaged this tariff decision as moral grandstanding, conveniently escaping the hypocrisy that China itself buys more oil from Russia and does not attract any punitive measures for it, a point that a ‘perplexed’ Foreign Minister Jaishankar subtly highlighted in Moscow. In fact, the Foreign Minister highlighted that it was Washington which encouraged India to buy oil from Russia. However, the US side is unmoved, as Navarro has made clear: he expects no extension past the 27 August deadline, when the tariffs officially kick in, and has added that the ‘road to peace (in the Russia–Ukraine war) runs through New Delhi’. From the ramparts of the Red Fort, Prime Minister Modi’s Independence Day remarks made it clear that he will ‘stand like a wall’ to protect the ‘interests of farmers, fisherfolk and cattle keepers’. Thus, high tariffs look likely to kick in even as the much-anticipated India–US trade deal lies in abeyance, with the latest round of talks postponed.
The bipartisan effort
What Nikki alludes to about the India–US relationship is the gradual nature of how it has been raised to a new level. Bill Clinton’s 2000 reset ended the post-nuclear-test sanctions frost. George W. Bush’s civil nuclear deal was a tectonic shift in the relationship and nearly led to a political earthquake in India, a bullet Manmohan Singh dodged narrowly. Barack Obama, between cosplaying as co-host for Mann Ki Baat, designated India a ‘major defence partner’ and signed the first foundational pact (LEMOA). Donald Trump topped it up with the next two pacts (COMCASA and later BECA) and expanded exercises. Joe Biden elevated the Quad to leader-level summits, launched the tech and defence initiative (iCET), and pushed deeper supply-chain and semiconductor cooperation.
Hard numbers, and the hidden figures
According to Goldman Sachs and others, the Indian economy is likely to shave around 0.6 per cent of GDP due to these high tariffs. According to an ICRIER policy paper, the current impact will be on 70 per cent of Indian goods exported to the US, which amounts to around 1.56 per cent of GDP and 7.36 per cent of total exports. The effect will be mostly on industries like textiles, gems and jewellery, auto parts, and agricultural products – particularly shrimp. The good news, though, is that several critical sectors like pharmaceuticals, energy and semiconductors are so far immune from these harsh measures. But with the stakes rising and India’s open refusal to bow to US whims and fancies, it is hard to know what the future holds.
But as The New York Times has highlighted, the silent aspect of the India–US relationship has been the partnership in services, whereas goods have hogged the limelight. About $84 billion is traded in services, and for years it has been roughly in balance between American and Indian firms.
Two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies, including the likes of Meta and Microsoft, now run operations across India, as per the report. Indian students are America’s largest foreign cohort; their tuition and living expenses help the US economy. In short, there is no charity; it is a two-way interaction coded in trust and mutual benefit.
This crisis will probably blow over once Trump’s ego is assuaged. But imprints of this one-sided onslaught on India may linger for a while. As Nikki Haley mentions, when Ronald Reagan toasted Indira Gandhi in 1982, he said: “Although our countries may travel separate paths from time to time, our destination remains the same.” Maybe there is a lesson there for the Trump administration.
Or, if they are interested, their boss has a similar lesson in The Art of the Deal, where he says, “Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself.” Is the upside to this kerfuffle really worth the potential downside? That is something the US side needs to consider. Haley’s argument is basically Trump’s own rulebook: push New Delhi on oil, yes; do not set the house on fire to teach a lesson. Leverage is not just about pressure.
Either the United States builds a century with India inside the frame, or it can push New Delhi to its biggest adversary. Nikki Haley has chosen what she believes is correct; it is time for others on the Hill to think it through.
The India–US relationship has been built, block by block: supply chains bending away from China; defence ties gradually scaling up; a booming tech lattice creating shared prosperity. Suddenly, all those partnerships are facing tariff heat, directly or indirectly. Beijing is not complaining; it is openly chiding the US, calling it a bully and supporting India, forcing strategic repositioning.
Former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is protesting precisely for this reason, though she sticks out like a sore thumb in the Trump-led party. Nikki’s pitch is not merely guided by her lineage; it is steeped in cold, hard logic. India is the only democracy on this side of the world with the scale of industry, demographics and sea access to put a spanner in China’s ambitions. The perspective of people like Haley is essentially that India needs to be counselled in private and supported in public, not berated with terms like ‘cheat’ and ‘Maharaja tariffs’, as policy hawks like White House trade adviser Peter Navarro are saying.
Why Haley and why almost no one else
JD Vance, Vivek Ramaswamy , Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel among others are deeply entrenched inside the Trumpverse. JD, who has an Indian-origin wife, has already faced racist attacks and is unlikely to spend his political capital on an issue his boss is championing, perhaps out of spite for not getting credit for reportedly brokering an Indo–Pak ceasefire. As a de facto successor to Trump, Vance will be doubly careful not to strike a discordant note. Ramaswamy has already burned his fingers with his open critique of why white Americans are falling behind in the merit race. Gabbard crossed into the pro-Trump media universe after getting limited support as a war-vet-turned-conservative Democrat. Patel is a MAGA insider slowly facing heat over a bunch of issues, including the Epstein files. For many PIOs and India sympathisers in the Trump administration, 'silence' seems to be the best strategy—at least for now.
Haley can speak because she has already crossed that bridge. Former governor Haley’s political career is virtually over after an unsuccessful run for president. She has also fallen out with the US president but understands his politics after working closely in the Trump 1.0 administration. That translates to this refreshing candour, a welcome defiance among muted responses.
There is also the Indian DNA in Nimrata Randhawa, aka Nikki Haley. On her 2018 Delhi visit as UN envoy, she went to Gauri Shankar Mandir, Jama Masjid and Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib. It was not a photo-op for the annual UN postcard; it was a reminder of her roots. She also carries the small-business immigrant ethics. Helping at her parents’ store in Bamberg, South Carolina, as a teenager, the ‘proud daughter of Indian immigrants’ understands big, blunt economic tools that sound tough but miss the nuances of supply and demand.
The Indian-American voter base is too locked in on excelling in their own private lives. They are affluent but small, not focused on advocacy, and hence cannot really move the needle politically. So they have little to no power to lobby for India on this issue. It is unlikely that Indian-origin titans at Big Tech are going to pick public fights with a White House that has enough leverage to make their lives difficult. Even the mighty Tim Cook had to show a public hand of support – or rather a 24-carat gold memento – to escape the harsh punitive actions of the Trump-led ecosystem.
Where the conflict currently stands
Trump and his surrogates have camouflaged this tariff decision as moral grandstanding, conveniently escaping the hypocrisy that China itself buys more oil from Russia and does not attract any punitive measures for it, a point that a ‘perplexed’ Foreign Minister Jaishankar subtly highlighted in Moscow. In fact, the Foreign Minister highlighted that it was Washington which encouraged India to buy oil from Russia. However, the US side is unmoved, as Navarro has made clear: he expects no extension past the 27 August deadline, when the tariffs officially kick in, and has added that the ‘road to peace (in the Russia–Ukraine war) runs through New Delhi’. From the ramparts of the Red Fort, Prime Minister Modi’s Independence Day remarks made it clear that he will ‘stand like a wall’ to protect the ‘interests of farmers, fisherfolk and cattle keepers’. Thus, high tariffs look likely to kick in even as the much-anticipated India–US trade deal lies in abeyance, with the latest round of talks postponed.
The bipartisan effort
What Nikki alludes to about the India–US relationship is the gradual nature of how it has been raised to a new level. Bill Clinton’s 2000 reset ended the post-nuclear-test sanctions frost. George W. Bush’s civil nuclear deal was a tectonic shift in the relationship and nearly led to a political earthquake in India, a bullet Manmohan Singh dodged narrowly. Barack Obama, between cosplaying as co-host for Mann Ki Baat, designated India a ‘major defence partner’ and signed the first foundational pact (LEMOA). Donald Trump topped it up with the next two pacts (COMCASA and later BECA) and expanded exercises. Joe Biden elevated the Quad to leader-level summits, launched the tech and defence initiative (iCET), and pushed deeper supply-chain and semiconductor cooperation.
Hard numbers, and the hidden figures
According to Goldman Sachs and others, the Indian economy is likely to shave around 0.6 per cent of GDP due to these high tariffs. According to an ICRIER policy paper, the current impact will be on 70 per cent of Indian goods exported to the US, which amounts to around 1.56 per cent of GDP and 7.36 per cent of total exports. The effect will be mostly on industries like textiles, gems and jewellery, auto parts, and agricultural products – particularly shrimp. The good news, though, is that several critical sectors like pharmaceuticals, energy and semiconductors are so far immune from these harsh measures. But with the stakes rising and India’s open refusal to bow to US whims and fancies, it is hard to know what the future holds.
But as The New York Times has highlighted, the silent aspect of the India–US relationship has been the partnership in services, whereas goods have hogged the limelight. About $84 billion is traded in services, and for years it has been roughly in balance between American and Indian firms.
Two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies, including the likes of Meta and Microsoft, now run operations across India, as per the report. Indian students are America’s largest foreign cohort; their tuition and living expenses help the US economy. In short, there is no charity; it is a two-way interaction coded in trust and mutual benefit.
This crisis will probably blow over once Trump’s ego is assuaged. But imprints of this one-sided onslaught on India may linger for a while. As Nikki Haley mentions, when Ronald Reagan toasted Indira Gandhi in 1982, he said: “Although our countries may travel separate paths from time to time, our destination remains the same.” Maybe there is a lesson there for the Trump administration.
Or, if they are interested, their boss has a similar lesson in The Art of the Deal, where he says, “Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself.” Is the upside to this kerfuffle really worth the potential downside? That is something the US side needs to consider. Haley’s argument is basically Trump’s own rulebook: push New Delhi on oil, yes; do not set the house on fire to teach a lesson. Leverage is not just about pressure.
Either the United States builds a century with India inside the frame, or it can push New Delhi to its biggest adversary. Nikki Haley has chosen what she believes is correct; it is time for others on the Hill to think it through.
You may also like
Royal expert shares warning over William's plans for slimmed-down monarchy
Humiliation for Putin as major Russian arms manufacturer on brink of bankruptcy
Every word Mikel Arteta said on Leeds United, Eze transfer, Havertz and Timber fitness and more
51 life convicts in Jharkhand jails to be released, CM Hemant Soren approves proposal
Woman asks 'is this normal' after catching her dog and cat doing something unexpected
