India's task cut out: Balancing power, trade and uncertainty!

Raju Korti
There are times in international relations when strategy ceases to be a matter of choice and becomes a matter of necessity. The current phase is one such moment for India. I watch closely as New Delhi attempts to manage a delicate balance in a world unsettled by post Trump tariffs and the subsequent reconfiguration of economic ties. For India, the question is not whether to take sides but how to secure its own space in a global order where alignments can change overnight.

The first challenge arises from its proximity to China, both geographically and now economically, as tariffs push old allies to rethink their equations. India has shown a pragmatic willingness to engage with China even while recognising the deep mistrust that underlies the relationship. This pragmatism is not born out of affection but out of expediency, for it is evident that isolating China is neither possible nor desirable in the present context. The paradox is that even as India cooperates with Beijing on certain economic fronts, it must remain alert to the strategic risks posed by the same neighbour.

Equally complex is the question of energy security. India’s purchase of Russian oil at discounted rates is one such calculated risk. It gives the country breathing space against rising global energy prices but it also places it in the line of fire of Western criticism. I perceive that national interests cannot be dictated by other powers, and this seems to sum up New Delhi’s stance today. Energy independence and price stability are more than economic calculations. They are survival strategies.

The unpredictability of Donald Trump adds another layer of uncertainty. His tariffs have unsettled global trade flows and his mercurial style leaves little room for confident predictions. One day he could be pressing harder on India, and another day he could be wooing it back with softened terms. India knows this and therefore refuses to build strategy around assumptions of permanence. It is choosing instead to offset steep tariffs by diversifying markets, expanding manufacturing capacities and striking new trade partnerships. This is a demonstration that resilience can be cultivated even when the global economic environment is hostile.

The effect of these manoeuvres extends beyond the major powers. The European Union finds itself squeezed between American protectionism and Asian assertiveness, forced to recalibrate its own trade strategy. Pakistan, always keen to fish in troubled waters, sees opportunities in the shifting alignments but remains too constrained economically and diplomatically to play more than a fringe role. Other smaller economies will also feel the ripple effects of tariff wars and shifting oil flows, but their strategies will depend largely on how the bigger players act.

Will this situation last for long? History shows that economic wars are rarely sustainable in the long run. It is possible that Trump, in his own unpredictable way, may eventually come to terms with the fact that softening his stand can win more than confrontation. Whether or not he does, India’s present course suggests it will not wait passively for a change of heart in Washington. It is steadily equipping itself to bear the weight of global uncertainty by ensuring that its vulnerabilities are reduced and its strategic options remain open.

The future scenario is therefore likely to be one of continued balancing. India will neither fully align with one bloc nor isolate itself. It will engage with China where required, secure its energy through Russian supplies, keep its dialogue with the United States alive and seek new markets elsewhere. This will not be an easy journey. It will demand nimbleness, foresight and above all the ability to live with contradictions. Yet if India manages this balancing act with clarity, it could emerge not just as a survivor but as a shaper of the global order in the years ahead.