Loading...
On mute: On the U.S., geopolitical turmoil, India’s response
The new year has brought little change in the geopolitical turmoil unleashed by the Trump administration, beginning with the U.S.’s unlawful action in Venezuela, followed by its threats to carry out similar regime-changing operations in South America and stated plans to annex Greenland. The U.S. Congress is now expected to discuss a new law that mandates up to 500% in tariffs on countries purchasing oil or uranium from Russia. The U.S. also stepped up its rhetoric against Iran for crackdowns against protesters, imposing more sanctions and threatening to attack it. In a social media post, Mr. Trump said that he would levy an additional 25% tariff on trade with any country doing business with Iran and the U.S. is pushing India to wind up operations at Chabahar port, where India has invested billions of dollars. In the face of such aggressive and unilateral actions, New Delhi’s responses have been muted, when not weak. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has expressed “deep concern” over events in Venezuela, but did not mention the U.S.’s egregious action of kidnapping the Venezuelan President and his wife, nor did it refer to the violation of basic tenets of international law. No statement has been made on the threats against the other countries (Cuba and Colombia), presumably as they are not in India’s immediate vicinity. On Iran, however, which is a close neighbour and has a historical relationship with India, the government’s reaction has been the most puzzling. It has not commented on the street protests or the U.S.’s threats of strikes and tariffs. The MEA has, however, issued travel advisories for Iran and Israel and is preparing evacuation plans for Indian students in Iran. Government officials also say India will reduce its trade with Iran further from current low levels.
The government’s motivations in not naming the U.S. for its obvious overreach can be explained. After a tense year in ties and a failure to conclude the India-U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreement, there is some hope of some movement on relations soon. U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor has painted an optimistic future for ties, beginning with the trade agreement and the inclusion of India in the U.S.’s high-technology partnership ‘Pax Silica’ next month. Officials may argue that little can be gained by speaking up now and risking another downturn in ties. However, each new threat by the U.S. is hurting ordinary Indians and the Indian economy. Above all, India stands to lose economically, reputationally and in terms of its other relationships as well, in a year where it hopes to host the BRICS+ Summit. The Modi government’s experience from 2019, when it gave up buying Iranian and Venezuelan oil under U.S. pressure should be a signal lesson — appeasement of a global power, however strong, cannot ensure India’s interests, only an assertion of its strategic autonomy can do that.
Overall Analysis
The editorial criticises India’s restrained and cautious response to the aggressive foreign policy actions of the U.S. under the Trump administration. It opens by listing a series of unilateral and controversial U.S. moves — regime-change attempts, sanctions, tariff threats, and military posturing — to establish a backdrop of escalating global instability. The accumulation of examples creates a sense of urgency and seriousness, while the phrase “geopolitical turmoil unleashed” assigns clear responsibility to U.S. actions.
The editorial then sharply contrasts this turbulence with India’s muted diplomatic stance. The language here is evaluative and disapproving, using expressions such as “muted, when not weak” to underline perceived policy timidity. By pointing out what India’s statements omit — particularly the failure to name the U.S. or condemn violations of international law — the author highlights silence as a deliberate political choice rather than diplomatic neutrality.
A significant portion focuses on Iran, where India’s silence appears most contradictory given historical ties and strategic interests like the Chabahar port. The editorial uses this inconsistency to question the coherence of India’s foreign policy, juxtaposing non-commentary with practical steps such as travel advisories and evacuation plans. This contrast suggests caution bordering on avoidance, reinforcing the central argument that India is reacting defensively rather than strategically.
In the second paragraph, the tone becomes more analytical. The editorial acknowledges possible reasons for India’s restraint — hopes of repairing India-U.S. relations, trade negotiations, and future partnerships. However, this concession is brief and quickly overturned. The author argues that continued acquiescence harms India economically, diplomatically, and reputationally, especially as it seeks leadership roles in global forums like BRICS+. The final reference to India’s past compliance with U.S. pressure on Iranian and Venezuelan oil serves as a historical lesson, strengthening the editorial’s warning against appeasement.
Important Vocabulary (5)
- Unilateral – taken by one country without consultation or agreement with others.
- Egregious – outstandingly bad or shocking.
- Appeasement – giving in to demands to avoid conflict, often at long-term cost.
- Reputationally – in terms of public image or credibility.
- Strategic autonomy – the ability of a nation to make independent foreign policy decisions.
Conclusion & Tone
The editorial concludes that India’s silence in the face of U.S. overreach undermines its economic interests, diplomatic credibility, and long-term strategic goals. It argues that safeguarding national interest requires assertiveness and independence, not quiet compliance.
Tone: Critical, cautionary, and assertive — urging India to reclaim its strategic voice on the global stage.
