From ancient kings to modern politicians, India’s problem has been trusting foreign leaders too easily. From Zhou Enlai to Nixon, from Putin to Trump—none have helped India without serving their own interests.
Global politics and economics are never still water. From time to time, global policies and directions change with changing leaders. After the Second World War, the United States argued that the world must move towards free markets—this, they said, was the only way to rebuild the shattered global economy. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, claimed that socialism and communism were the future of the world’s economy. The Cold War between these two visions shaped global politics for decades.
But when the Soviet Union collapsed around 1989, much of the world accepted U.S. dominance. As a result, the GATT agreement gave way to the WTO. The U.S. and Western nations began pressuring developing Asian countries to open their markets—sometimes with persuasion, often with threats. Soon, more than 160 nations signed on to the Doha proposals.
Thirty years ago, the same America that now says, “We’ll build economic fortresses and mind our own business,” was insisting: “If you want loans or military aid, open your markets.” Globalization was sold as the solution to all economic, social, and political problems. But now, the U.S. is teaching the opposite lesson—free markets are over; walls and tariffs are necessary. It feels as though the end of the free market era is near.
And with the West, it’s always hard to tell when they’ll shake your hand and when they’ll let it go.
Western Double Standards
This double-dealing is nothing new. Britain and France, the “empires on which the sun never set,” colonized much of India and Africa, looting their wealth for centuries—yet these same nations fought Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy in WWII for their expansionism.
The U.S., which now issues directives on who should and shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, was the first to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the lives and futures of hundreds of thousands in seconds. The Soviet Union, China, and Cuba embraced communism and nurtured dictators, but America—while claiming to champion democracy—was linked to the assassinations of leaders like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh.
In the 1970s and ’80s, the U.S. went around telling nations like India and China: “Open your markets or we will not give you loans, aid, or support.” Today, that same America says: “If we don’t close our doors and raise tariffs, we will go bankrupt.”
So is this the end of free markets? Or is it simply fear that the benefits are flowing more to Asia and Africa than to the West? Most likely, it is the latter.
The Post-American World
By the late 18th century, despite conflicts in the Balkans and North Africa, the world economy was growing. France and Britain were economic powers, but industrialization brought America and Germany into the global power game. These rivalries led directly to the First and Second World Wars.
After WWII, the Cold War rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union sent American money flowing into West Germany and East Asia, leading to 9% annual growth rates for Western Europe and Japan. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the global economy moved beyond the Western club, allowing Asian and African nations to enter the “world market” in a real sense.
Since the 1990s, populous nations like India, China, and Brazil—and smaller nations like Bangladesh and the Philippines—have recorded growth rates of 133% to 150%. Each decade since then, over a billion people have become beneficiaries of the global market.
Now, U.S. leaders fear that unless Americans buy American products, the country will face another major recession. Protecting one’s own nation is not wrong, but after 75 years of preaching free markets, suddenly shutting the gates raises questions about the global consequences.
Changing Global Power
History shows that nations with smaller populations often dominated global politics and wealth. From Alexander the Great to the British Empire, small states have ruled the world politically. Large-population nations were often stuck in poverty.
The U.S. itself, a relatively large nation, rose to global dominance only after 1945. But after the gates of the free market were opened, the world’s two most populous nations—India and China—found their place in global politics, economics, and military strength.
The logic is simple: the bigger the population, the more workers and the more consumers. This market principle is now reshaping the rules of politics and economics and shifting centers of influence. Perhaps that is why the U.S. is breaking the rules it created 35 years ago and writing new ones. But this will not be easy, and it could accelerate a global power shift.
What Next for India?
From ancient kings to modern politicians, India’s problem has been trusting foreign leaders too easily. From Zhou Enlai to Nixon, from Putin to Trump—none have helped India without serving their own interests.
Nehru’s trust in Zhou Enlai and Lord Mountbatten led to mistakes in both China and Kashmir. Even knowing this history, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Ab ki baar, Trump sarkar” slogan five years ago was hardly sound foreign policy.
Events in Ukraine and Gaza have since made it clear that political non-alignment is India’s safest approach. Trump’s tariff tantrums showed that India should never be entirely economically dependent on America.
Trump’s remarks during meetings with the Ukrainian president at the White House, his comments on the India–Pakistan ceasefire, and his sudden affection for Pakistan—all alongside tariffs on Indian goods—make one thing certain: whether we like it or not, Modi and India had to endure Trump for four years.
The question is—will America pay a price for this, or will India face setbacks? That is for the future to decide. But one truth remains: in life and in geopolitics, every crisis opens new doors. Trump’s crisis may yet have a silver lining.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views or stance of the organization. The organization assumes no responsibility for the content shared.