When tariffs meet strategy: why India waited — a personal read

I woke up to the headlines — a sudden 50% tariff proclamation, breathless interpretations, and questions about why India didn’t respond with immediate retaliatory tariffs. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s short explanation — that New Delhi chose to buy time rather than rush into tit‑for‑tat retaliation — was the official thread tying together those headlines Trump tariffs: Why India didn't react to 50% duty immediately? Rajnath Singh reveals. I’ve been thinking about that answer in the quiet hours since — partly as a citizen, partly as someone who refuses to let geopolitics be reduced to daily theatrics.

I want to put on the table three simple, connected observations: (1) the political logic of pause, (2) the economic and diplomatic realities that make an immediate “mirror tariff” both tempting and dangerous, and (3) why this moment ought to sharpen, not blunt, India’s push for strategic economic resilience.

1) The politics of pause: what Rajnath Singh’s answer really signalled

When Rajnath Singh explained why New Delhi did not reflexively match a 50% duty, he wasn’t merely defending prudence; he was describing a calculus. An immediate, blunt tariff response can be an effective political signal in some contexts — but it is an imprecise weapon. It can:

• escalate a spat into a broader economic war overnight,
• hurt import‑dependent industries and consumers at home, and
• close diplomatic windows that might secure deeper leverage.

That last point matters. The United States is not a neutral umpire in India’s strategic equation; it is a partner and a competitor. If you assume a public blow‑up will coalesce international backing against Washington, you have misread the system. If you assume Washington will fold under the glare, you will be disappointed. Rajnath’s point — deliberate, quieter diplomacy buys options — is not a moral failing, it is a refusal to substitute headline drama for national judgement Trump tariffs: Why India didn't react….

2) The realities that make instant retaliation risky

Let me be blunt: the global economy is asymmetric. Tariffs are not just taxes; they are weapons whose effects ricochet in ways diplomacy cannot always predict. A few practical points:

• Trade links are deep. Many Indian exporters use components, logistics and financing that cross borders multiple times. A hasty 50% reciprocal duty can strangle supply chains and collateralise small businesses and farmers.
• Currency and markets move fast. A headline war can spook investors, impose hidden cost increases, and cause more damage at home than the point of attack abroad.
• WTO and legal avenues take time but create durable solutions. Immediate retaliation shuts off negotiation spaces; calibrated legal and multilateral pressure can entrench gains without wrecking the domestic economy.

The minister’s candour about buying time reflected an awareness of those dynamics. Buying time is, in short, an attempt to avoid foolhardy reciprocity and preserve options — including legal, multilateral, and market alternatives.

3) But “wait” is not “accept” — and here the hard work begins

I am not arguing for passivity. Deliberation without consequence is cowardice disguised as prudence. The pause should be used as hard space — not to wait out a tantrum, but to act strategically. That means three things, fast:

• Diversify markets. Exporters must find alternate destinations and routes — Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia — so a single market’s coercion cannot strangle livelihoods.
• Harden supply‑chains. Promote domestic inputs, incentivise semiconductor, pharma and intermediate goods production, and offload sensitive dependencies that make tariffs a weapon against us.
• Use trade law and coalitions. Pursue WTO remedies where applicable, and coordinate with partners whose interests align (many economies dislike tariff autarky). Legal wins buy durable relief in a way headlines do not.

These are practical policy priorities. They also require political will and a long‑term strategy that takes India beyond headline diplomacy.

A larger strategic point: stop treating trade as mere barter, and start treating it as power

Some commentators want to boil this down to politics: “He’s weak,” or “he didn’t punch back.” That is lazy. Geopolitics is not about who yells the loudest; it is about who can take strategic hits and still deliver for citizens. The present tariff episode shows why India’s foreign policy must be married to a sound economic security doctrine.

Bharat Karnad has been unequivocal on this point — warning about over‑dependence on single partners for technology, defence or markets and urging India to turn strategic setbacks into leverage and capability building Modi’s effusive response to Trump sets India up for more humiliation. I cite his critique not to indulge in polemics but because there is an uncomfortable kernel of truth: when we outsource our resilience, we pay for it when politics turns sour.

So what should the pause lead to in practice? Here’s what I’d insist on seeing implemented — at pace:

• A whole‑of‑government export resilience mission: targeted export credit, logistics cushions, and a matchmaking push for alternate buyers in 12–18 months.
• A data‑driven industrial policy to replace critical imports for the most vulnerable sectors (pharma intermediates, specialty chemicals, electronic components).
• A diplomatic push for “guardrails” with large partners — clear rules of engagement for trade disputes, reciprocity clauses, and a standing mechanism for crisis arbitration.

None of this is theatrical. None of it wins viral sympathies. But each will preserve jobs and livelihoods while denying a coercive partner the immediate satisfaction of seeing India kneel.

Final reflection — delay was defensible, but not sufficient

I accept Rajnath Singh’s explanation as an honest description of India’s immediate calculus Trump tariffs: Why India didn't react…. I also feel the pause must now be turned into momentum. India cannot long be comfortable as a market to be taxed, a supplier to be extorted, or a partner to be arm‑twisted.

This episode is a reminder: in a world where tariffs can be raised with a tweet, strategy must be patiently prepared and ruthlessly implemented. Buying time is fine — if the time is used. Otherwise, pause becomes procrastination, and prudence a pretext for drift.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh