Editorial-19/08/2026
Time to Push Back: On India and the Continuing U.S. Pressure
India and the United States describe each other as strategic partners, but the relationship is increasingly marked by pressure, demands and unequal expectations. Washington’s latest allegations that India is helping China circumvent American tariffs are not merely a technical trade dispute. They raise larger questions about India’s economic sovereignty, its manufacturing strategy and the limits of its willingness to accommodate U.S. priorities. India must respond firmly—not through needless confrontation, but by making clear that partnership cannot mean accepting unilateral accusations or surrendering independent policy choices.
A troubling new accusation
A recent White House report reportedly identifies around 40 countries as possible “facilitators” of China’s circumvention of U.S. tariffs, with India described as one of the leading participants. The allegation is that Chinese goods are imported into India, undergo only minor changes, and are then exported to the United States at lower tariff rates than Chinese products would attract directly. If Washington acts on this claim, Indian exports could face punitive duties, additional inspections or new rules of origin.
Such allegations deserve examination. No country should permit fraudulent relabelling or the deliberate evasion of legitimate customs duties. Indian exporters must comply with transparent rules, maintain accurate documentation and demonstrate genuine domestic value addition. The government should investigate individual cases and punish violations where they are established.
But the existence of isolated violations cannot justify treating India’s entire manufacturing ecosystem as a vehicle for Chinese tariff evasion. The U.S. must distinguish between superficial trans-shipment and legitimate production. India’s manufacturing sector necessarily depends on imported components, particularly from China. This is not evidence of bad faith; it is a normal feature of global production networks.
The transformation of a raw material or component into a finished product often involves several stages across different countries. A smartphone, automobile, pharmaceutical product or piece of industrial equipment may contain inputs sourced from many economies. What matters is whether substantial processing, assembly, design, testing and value addition occur in India. A blanket presumption that Chinese inputs invalidate Indian exports would punish the very manufacturing expansion that the United States claims to support.
Chinese imports and Make in India
India’s economic relationship with China is complicated. China remains a strategic competitor and a source of security concerns, yet Chinese machinery, components, chemicals, electronics and intermediate goods remain important to Indian industry. In several sectors, Indian producers cannot immediately replace these inputs with domestic alternatives.
This dependence is a weakness, but it is also part of the process of industrial development. A country does not become a manufacturing power simply by banning imports. It must first acquire machinery, technology, skills, supply-chain linkages and economies of scale. Many successful manufacturing economies initially relied heavily on imported components before building stronger domestic capabilities.
India is gradually moving in that direction. The country is increasingly importing intermediate goods rather than merely importing finished products for superficial rebranding. These inputs support assembly and manufacturing in India across sectors. The process is incomplete, and domestic value addition must increase, but it represents progress rather than tariff evasion. The objective of Make in India is not autarky. It is to turn India into a competitive production base integrated with global supply chains.
The United States should therefore view India’s imports from China in context. If Washington wants companies to diversify away from China, India needs access to components, capital, technology and markets. Penalising Indian exporters because they use Chinese inputs would make diversification more difficult. It could also encourage firms to keep production in China, where supply chains are already deeply established.
A pattern of concessions
India’s concern is not limited to the latest allegation. It arises from a broader pattern in which repeated concessions have failed to prevent further demands from Washington.
Under pressure from the United States, India reduced tariffs on premium motorcycles. Duties that had once ranged between 60% and 75% were lowered to 50% in 2018 and later to 40% in February 2025. India also reduced duties on shrimp feed and related components, as well as on frozen duck and turkey, after these issues became important to U.S. trade negotiators.
Such adjustments can be justified when they serve India’s own economic interests. Lower tariffs may benefit consumers, improve competitiveness or support domestic producers. The problem begins when concessions are made mainly to avoid political pressure and are followed by still greater demands.
A similar dynamic has appeared in energy policy. Punitive U.S. tariffs pushed India to reduce its dependence on Russian oil despite New Delhi’s repeated insistence that its energy purchases were guided by affordability, availability and national interest. By January 2026, Russia’s share of India’s oil imports had reportedly fallen below 20%, after being almost twice as high six months earlier. Yet when the West Asian crisis intensified and U.S. pressure temporarily eased, India moved again toward Russian supplies.
This episode exposed the limits of externally driven energy policy. India may diversify its sources, but it cannot allow another country to determine which suppliers it may use—especially when energy security affects inflation, transport costs, industrial production and household welfare.
India’s decision to permit foreign investment in the inventory-based e-commerce model also illustrates the pressures involved. The change addressed a long-standing demand associated with major American companies such as Amazon. Greater foreign investment can bring capital, technology and logistics expertise, but regulatory reforms should be based on India’s own assessment of competition, small retailers and consumer welfare—not on the preferences of a foreign government or corporation.
The danger of asymmetry
The deeper problem is asymmetry. India often approaches the relationship as a strategic partnership requiring accommodation, while the United States frequently approaches it as a negotiation in which pressure is expected to produce concessions.
This imbalance is reinforced by India’s dependence on the American market, technology and investment. The United States is a major destination for Indian exports, particularly in information technology, pharmaceuticals, textiles, engineering goods and services. Indian professionals also depend heavily on access to the U.S. economy. Washington knows that tariffs, visa restrictions and regulatory barriers can impose significant costs.
But dependence does not mean helplessness. The United States also benefits from India. American companies need access to India’s large consumer market, expanding digital economy, skilled workforce and infrastructure opportunities. Washington seeks India’s cooperation in balancing China, securing the Indo-Pacific and strengthening resilient supply chains. The relationship is therefore mutually valuable, even if the benefits are not distributed evenly in every sector.
India should use this leverage more effectively. A strategic partnership must include reciprocity. If the U.S. raises concerns about Indian tariffs, India should raise concerns about American subsidies, agricultural barriers, visa restrictions and technology controls. If Washington questions Indian supply chains, New Delhi should demand clear evidence, transparent procedures and an opportunity to respond before penalties are imposed.
What a firm response means
Pushing back does not require abandoning negotiations or adopting an unnecessarily nationalist posture. It requires a disciplined strategy.
First, India should insist on evidence-based trade action. Washington should identify specific companies, products and transactions rather than making broad accusations against Indian industry. India should offer to cooperate with investigations, but it should reject collective punishment.
Second, India must improve its own customs and origin systems. Digital documentation, traceability and independent audits can help exporters prove genuine value addition. Stronger enforcement would protect Indian companies from both foreign accusations and domestic malpractice.
Third, New Delhi should diversify its trade relationships. Greater engagement with Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa, West Asia, Latin America and other emerging markets would reduce excessive dependence on the United States. Diversification is not an anti-American policy; it is basic economic prudence.
Fourth, India should accelerate domestic production of critical components. Dependence on Chinese inputs cannot be ended overnight, but it can be reduced through investment in electronics, machinery, chemicals, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and renewable-energy equipment. The aim should be competitive capability, not inefficient protectionism.
Finally, India should separate genuine strategic cooperation from unrelated economic concessions. Cooperation with the United States on defence, maritime security, technology and climate change should not automatically require India to alter its energy purchases, weaken consumer protections or accept restrictions on its trade with third countries.
Partnership without subordination
India and the United States have genuine shared interests. Both are concerned about China’s growing power, the security of the Indo-Pacific and the need for resilient supply chains. Their companies, universities and people are connected in ways that cannot be easily reversed. A disagreement over tariffs should not destroy the broader relationship.
However, a durable partnership cannot be built on the assumption that India must repeatedly surrender its policy choices. The United States may pursue its interests assertively; India must do the same. New Delhi should be willing to negotiate, but it must also be willing to say no when demands undermine its economic security or strategic autonomy.
The latest U.S. allegations should therefore be treated as a test. India should investigate any legitimate concerns, correct wrongdoing and provide full transparency. At the same time, it should firmly reject the idea that the use of Chinese components automatically makes Indian exports illegitimate, or that Washington has the authority to dictate India’s trade and energy choices.
India’s objective should not be confrontation with America. It should be equality with America. A confident India can remain a close partner of the United States while preserving independent decisions on trade, energy, technology and foreign policy. That is not defiance for its own sake. It is the minimum condition for a relationship between two sovereign powers.
Download Pdf
