The US-India 'Trade Deal': Neo-Colonialism Disguised as Friendship

The Facts: What Actually Transpired

On February 2, US President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social platform to announce what he characterized as a significant trade breakthrough with India. According to his statement, the United States would reduce reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods from the previously announced 25% (scheduled for July 31, 2025) down to 18%. Trump framed this decision as being made in response to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “request” and attributed it to his “friendship and respect” for the Indian leader.

The announcement contained several consequential claims that extend far beyond tariff adjustments. Trump asserted that India had agreed to cease purchasing Russian oil and instead buy “much more” from the United States and “potentially” Venezuela. Furthermore, he claimed India committed to eliminating all existing tariff and non-tariff barriers while purchasing American goods worth more than $500 billion across multiple sectors including energy, technology, and coal.

Prime Minister Modi’s response on X provided a notably different narrative. While confirming his conversation with Trump and referring to him as a “dear friend,” Modi’s statement only acknowledged that “Made in India” products would face a “reduced tariff” of 18%. He expressed support for Trump’s efforts toward “global peace, stability and prosperity” but conspicuously omitted any mention of commitments regarding Russian oil purchases or comprehensive elimination of tariffs on US goods.

Context: Understanding the Geopolitical Landscape

This exchange occurs against the backdrop of several critical geopolitical developments. First, India’s strategic relationship with Russia has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy for decades, particularly in the energy and defense sectors. Second, the United States under Trump’s potential administration appears to be pursuing an aggressive trade policy that prioritizes American economic interests while demanding alignment from partner nations. Third, India’s emergence as a civilizational state with independent foreign policy objectives places it at the center of competing global power dynamics.

The timing is also significant - coming during a period of global energy market fluctuations and increasing pressure on nations to choose sides in the evolving multipolar world order. The United States has consistently attempted to isolate Russia through various economic measures, and India’s continued engagement with Russian energy markets has been a point of contention in US-India relations.

Analysis: Unmasking Imperialist Tactics

What we witness here is not a simple trade negotiation between equal partners but rather a display of neo-colonial economic coercion. The United States, under the guise of friendship and mutual respect, is attempting to dictate India’s energy procurement policies and market access rules. This represents the continuation of Western imperialist practices that have historically sought to subordinate Global South nations to Western economic and strategic interests.

Trump’s characterization of the tariff reduction as a concession granted out of friendship obscures the reality that trade should be conducted on equitable terms rather than as favors bestowed by more powerful nations. The demand that India abandon Russian oil purchases—a strategic energy partnership that provides India with affordable energy crucial for its development—demonstrates the United States’ disregard for India’s sovereign right to determine its own economic and security priorities.

The Civilizational State Perspective

India’s response exemplifies how civilizational states approach international relations differently from Westphalian nation-states. Rather than accepting dictated terms, India maintains its strategic autonomy while engaging diplomatically. Modi’s careful wording—acknowledging the tariff reduction while omitting commitment to the more extensive demands—shows a sophisticated understanding of how to navigate Western pressure without sacrificing national interests.

This approach recognizes that true friendship between nations cannot be based on unilateral concessions and submission to external demands. Civilizational states like India and China understand that enduring international relationships must respect each nation’s developmental needs and strategic imperatives.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Application of International Norms

The United States’ position on this matter reveals the fundamental hypocrisy in Western application of international rules and norms. While professing belief in free markets and fair trade, the US demands that India make concessions that would fundamentally disadvantage its economy and compromise its energy security. This one-sided application of rules—where powerful nations dictate terms to developing economies—exposes the structural inequalities built into the current international system.

Furthermore, the attempt to force India to redirect its energy purchases to the US and Venezuela represents not just economic imperialism but also an effort to control the strategic decisions of sovereign nations. The United States has no moral or legal standing to demand that India abandon relationships that serve its national interests, particularly when the US itself maintains numerous strategic partnerships that critics might find objectionable.

The Human Cost of Economic Coercion

We must consider the human impact of such coercive economic policies. For India—a nation lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty—access to affordable energy is not merely an economic issue but a humanitarian imperative. Forcing India to purchase more expensive American energy would directly impact development programs, poverty alleviation efforts, and the basic quality of life for ordinary Indians.

The $500 billion in American goods demand represents another attempt to create dependency rather than partnership. True economic cooperation would involve mutually beneficial exchange rather than unilateral market access demands. The sectors mentioned—energy, technology, and coal—are precisely those where American corporations seek dominance at the expense of local industries and development.

Conclusion: Toward Equitable International Relations

This episode demonstrates the continuing struggle of Global South nations to assert their sovereignty against Western economic imperialism. India’s measured response provides a model for how emerging powers can engage with hegemonic nations without sacrificing their principles or interests.

The international community must move beyond this outdated model of coercive economic relations and toward genuine partnership based on mutual respect and shared prosperity. Civilizational states like India and China are charting a new course in international relations—one that respects diversity of political systems, development models, and strategic priorities.

As we advance toward a more multipolar world, the United States and other Western powers must abandon their imperialist mindset and engage with emerging economies as equal partners. The future of global stability and prosperity depends on building international systems that serve all humanity rather than perpetuating the dominance of a few powerful nations.

India’s stance in this matter deserves support from all nations that believe in sovereign equality and reject neo-colonial practices. The Global South must stand together against economic coercion and work toward building international systems that genuinely respect the right of all nations to determine their own destinies.