New Delhi, March 17 (NationPress) It appears that US President Donald Trump underestimated India's resilience, as revealed in a recent study by a professor from IIM Udaipur. The research, conducted by Professor Kunal Kamal Kumar and featured in Third World Quarterly, examines the friction between the US and India over Russian oil in 2025, concluding that Trump's tariff threats did not achieve their intended effect.

The study indicates that the US aimed to coerce India into altering its stance on Russian oil by imposing hefty tariffs on Indian imports. However, India regarded this issue as far more significant than a mere diplomatic matter. For New Delhi, it was fundamentally about energy security, economic stability, and national interest. Access to cheaper crude oil is not just a foreign policy concern; it has direct implications for inflation, transportation, industry, and the daily lives of citizens.

Thus, the professor argues that India's position is firmly grounded in its need for sovereignty, energy security, and strategic autonomy. In simpler terms, the message was unequivocal: decisions regarding India's energy requirements will be made in Delhi, not under external pressure from Washington.

This context highlights the role of the Narendra Modi administration. The paper notes that PM Modi's steadfastness aligns with India's broader approach to strategic autonomy. Essentially, under Modi, India aims to engage with all major global powers but will not compromise its interests due to pressure from any nation.

Moreover, the research presents a crucial economic insight. Tariffs are often seen as punitive measures against the opposing side, yet they can also backfire on the imposing country. For instance, when the US levies tariffs on Indian goods, American importers face higher costs, supply chains are disrupted, prices escalate, and consumers bear the consequences. Therefore, tariffs do not function as a magic weapon solely affecting India; they can adversely impact the US as well.

The study classifies tariff threats as a blunt instrument. They generate noise and exert pressure, but do not always lead to capitulation. In fact, they can sometimes have the opposite effect, strengthening the resolve of the pressured entity, redirecting trade flows, and encouraging the pressured nation to become more self-reliant.

The professor emphasizes that this disagreement extends beyond oil; it reflects a shifting global landscape. Nations like India are increasingly reluctant to passively accept Western pressure when their essential interests are at stake. The historical practice of employing economic force to enforce compliance is proving less effective.

From a pragmatic standpoint, India's policy is to prioritize its crude imports. Any government in Delhi must first consider affordable supply, domestic stability, and the national economy. Viewed through this lens, purchasing discounted oil is not an imprudent decision; it is a calculated move made in India's best interest.

This analysis is significant as it underscores that Trump's coercive tactics have limitations, that tariff disputes can inflict damage on both parties, and that India's stance is deeply rooted in its national interests.

The ultimate takeaway is clear: Trump attempted to leverage tariff pressures to compel India into compliance, but India stood firm. According to this study, this defiance was not merely a symbolic act; it is indicative of a larger transformation in India's global engagement strategy under PM Modi: to collaborate with all, safeguard national interests, and uphold sovereignty and energy security.