India’s Duplicity Exposed: The Illusion of Strategic Autonomy

For years, India has portrayed itself as a principled global player, claiming to follow the noble path of non-alignment and strategic autonomy. This image has been carefully cultivated to impress the world and reassure its own citizens that the country stands tall, independent, and immune to outside pressure. But the recent tariff dispute between the United States and India has stripped away that facade, revealing a pattern of double-dealing that exposes the truth behind this much-celebrated policy. The myth has always been that India is a nation that can deal with all sides while staying true to its own values. The reality is that this is less about balance and more about manipulation, seeking maximum benefits from everyone while giving little in return.

The United States–India tariff war has shown that India’s so-called “business with all” approach is a strategy of calculated opportunism. On the surface, New Delhi tries to project defiance against Washington by courting Moscow and holding symbolic meetings with Beijing. These moves are presented to the Indian public as acts of bravery, often wrapped in statements delivered only in Hindi to create the illusion of national strength. But behind closed doors, the very same Indian officials work hard to keep America comfortable, making sure they never actually cross lines that could damage relations. It is a performance staged for two audiences at once: the voters at home who want to believe in a strong, independent India, and the policymakers abroad whose favor India quietly seeks.

When Washington’s tariffs hit Indian exports, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar went on the offensive, publicly complaining about being singled out. They even pointed out that other countries—members of the European Union, China, and others—were still trading with Russia without facing the same American pressure. At first glance, this looked like a rare act of defiance. But the timing and tone made it clear this was more about saving face than standing firm. Even while criticizing Washington, India continued to ask for concessions from the very countries it was calling out, trying to maintain benefits from every direction. This is not the mark of a truly autonomous state; it is the behavior of a player who wants to keep every door open no matter how contradictory the path.

There is an old saying: a bitter enemy is better than a foolish friend. The tariff dispute has reminded many of India’s partners that while New Delhi talks about friendship and shared values, it treats every relationship as a temporary arrangement to be reshaped whenever it suits its own interests. Trust, once lost, is hard to regain, and India’s habit of speaking one language in public and another in private is making more countries question its reliability.

The cracks in this approach are becoming clearer. Modi’s much-touted political strategy, often described as a masterstroke of nationalist leadership, is now colliding with the realities of international politics. The policy of trying to please everyone—Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Brussels—might win short-term gains, but in the long run it creates the risk of pleasing no one. Operation Sindoor, once a symbol of political dominance, is fast becoming a metaphorical graveyard for the grand claims of Modi’s government. The more it tries to juggle competing powers, the deeper the holes it digs for itself.

For Pakistan, this moment carries special significance. Islamabad has long warned that India’s foreign policy is built not on principle but on manipulation. The tariff dispute has provided a public example of this behavior for the whole world to see. It is no longer a question of Pakistan’s word against India’s; the contradictions are playing out on the global stage. Washington sees it, Moscow sees it, Beijing sees it, and so do India’s trade partners in Europe. The idea that India is a trustworthy bridge between great powers is crumbling, replaced by the image of a state constantly shifting its position to grab the next advantage.

This matters because credibility is the currency of international politics. A country that is seen as unreliable will eventually find itself without genuine allies. By trying to extract benefits from every side, India is risking isolation. It talks about peace but invests heavily in its war machine. It claims to follow its own path but quietly bends to the will of those who can offer it the most. Such a pattern cannot last forever, and the tariff war may be the first major crack in the carefully painted image.

The United States may choose to overlook India’s duplicity for now because of strategic calculations, but others will remember. Russia will not forget that India tries to balance its friendship with Moscow against its desire for U.S. technology and trade access. China will not ignore the fact that India talks about cooperation while deepening military ties with Washington. Even within the developing world, countries that once admired India’s non-alignment are beginning to question whether it still stands for anything beyond self-interest.

For all its attempts to play the role of a rising, independent power, India is increasingly trapped in its own contradictions. The tariff war has shown that the stage-managed image of strategic autonomy is just that—stage management. The longer it tries to maintain this act, the more obvious the truth will become. In the end, a country cannot be on all sides forever. Eventually, choices must be made, and trust must be earned rather than endlessly traded for short-term gain.

Pakistan, for its part, has no illusions about India’s intentions. This moment should be used to remind the world of what Islamabad has said all along: that behind the slogans and handshakes lies a policy of calculated deception. And as the United States and others now see firsthand, a partner who plays every side is not a partner at all. The cracks in India’s diplomatic game are widening, and the world is watching closely.