S. Jaishankar and Vikram Misri were imbued with Nehruvian ideals and eloquent expression, when they declared strategic autonomy and civilisational pride at the Raisina Dialogue. However, the past twelve months paint a distinctly Modi-esque picture of empty rhetoric and capitulation.<\/p>\n
On the final day of the Raisina Dialogue 2026, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar delivered a resounding rebuttal to US deputy secretary of state Christopher Landau\u2019s warning that Washington wouldn\u2019t allow India to rise economically like China. Jaishankar asserted:<\/p>\n
\u201cIndia\u2019s rise will be determined solely by India. It will be defined by our strength, not by the mistakes of others.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u00a0He further emphasised the emergence of multipolarity, stating:<\/p>\n
\u201cMultipolarity is now a permanent reality. The world is unlikely to revert to a system where a few powers dictate major agreements and expect the rest to simply comply.\u201d<\/p>\n
Earlier that day, foreign secretary Vikram Misri questioned the legitimacy of a rules-based international order that excluded India\u2019s participation, prompting a pointed question:<\/p>\n
\u201cIndia supports a rules-based order, but did we have a role in shaping those rules?\u201d<\/p>\n
Misri also advocated for moving beyond shared values, suggesting that countries could compete in one domain while cooperating in another.<\/p>\n
Together, these statements challenge the multilateral dominance of the US and the West and propose that countries don\u2019t necessarily need to be strategic allies to function cooperatively. They implicitly reject the US\u2019s framing of the relationship as one where India must choose between aligning with Washington and pursuing its own interests.<\/p>\n
At a time when Modi\u2019s foreign policy faces scrutiny even from some of his supporters, these statements serve as a bold assertion of Indian strategic autonomy.<\/p>\n
However, there\u2019s a significant contradiction. The twelve months preceding these statements paint a very different picture.<\/p>\n
In Washington, India conceded to US pressure while in Delhi, India firmly refused<\/p>\n
The capitulation began even before Trump initiated the tariff war and weaponised trade, dominating conversations. Prime minister Narendra Modi presented a list of concessions when he met the newly inaugurated Trump in February 2025. Before any tariffs were imposed, India offered to reduce duties on some American exports and suggested purchasing more US energy and defence products. India remained silent on Trump\u2019s demonstrative decision to deport illegal immigrants in chains, which was filmed for maximum embarrassment. Modi remained silent.<\/p>\n
Washington acknowledged Delhi\u2019s submission and praised the partnership. Trump called Modi a great leader and Modi declared that MAGA plus MIGA equals mega \u2013 a mega partnership for prosperity. However, within weeks, Trump imposed a 25% reciprocal tariff on Indian goods in April 2025 as part of his \u2018Liberation Day\u2019 executive order regardless.<\/p>\n
When the tariff was doubled to 50% as India was importing Russian oil, India labelled it \u2018unfair unjustified and unreasonable\u2019. However, it did not take retaliatory action nor initiate a formal multilateral challenge. India simply absorbed the blow meekly.<\/p>\n
In May, following the Pahalgam attacks, India launched Operation Sindoor. However, this response was abruptly and unceremoniously extinguished by Trump\u2019s unilateral announcement of a ceasefire on social media. Trump claimed credit for mediation, but India denied the claim. Modi failed to respond to the repeated barbs of a dictated ceasefire. The strategic autonomy, so eloquently articulated at the Raisina Dialogues, was lacking.<\/p>\n
At the Raisina, Misri asked if India had a hand in shaping the rules. The US Trade deal answers this question: NO.<\/p>\n
In the US-India Joint Statement on the Framework for Trade Agreement, India almost unquestioningly accepted the rules set by the US regarding tariffs, data, agricultural product access, pharmaceutical trade and all industrial products.<\/p>\n
India meekly agreed to negotiate non-tariff barriers, ICT licensing, medical devices rules and region of origin rules within the US-dictated timelines.<\/p>\n
Misri spoke of India\u2019s support for a rules-based order with inclusive rule-making yet signed to agree to bilateral digital trade rules directly borrowed from the US regulatory dictionary.<\/p>\n
The golden words spoken at Raisina about cooperation coexisting with competition and no partner dictating terms belie India\u2019s experience of forced commitments like the $500 billion purchase from the US and the ban on Russian oil purchases coupled with high-level US monitoring. When a sovereign energy procurement decision is made under tariff coercion, the rhetoric of autonomy contrasts sharply with the reality of coercive submission.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the assertion that India questions rules it had no role in shaping sounds hollow when India is compelled to agree to an asymmetric tariff of 18% on its goods while moving towards 0% on all American goods.<\/p>\n
The Iran War: The End of India\u2019s Vishwaguru Claims<\/p>\n
The US trade deal exposed the Modi government\u2019s claims of economic autonomy. The Iran war strips away its claim of strategic autonomy. While Jaishankar still speaks of multipolarity, the Modi government\u2019s decision over the past week indicates unambiguous acceptance of US hegemony. India now appears as a camp follower of the US and Israel with little say in the ongoing crisis.<\/p>\n
Till recently, Modi government understood that India\u2019s ties with Iran are far more than transactional. Beyond historical significance, Iran has been a steadfast logistical and strategic ally of India throughout Modi\u2019s tenure. This alliance serves as India\u2019s gateway to Central Asia, Russia and Afghanistan. India successfully negotiated and developed the International North-South Transport Corridor as a counter to China\u2019s Pakistan Economic Corridor. Chabahar port emerged as India\u2019s strategic response to China\u2019s Gwadar.<\/p>\n
However, everything changed dramatically on February 26, 2026, when Modi visited Israel. Iran, a friendly nation participating in naval exercises at Vizag\u2019s \u2018Milap 2026\u2019, suddenly became a pariah. India took six days to offer condolences for Ayatollah Khamenei\u2019s death, and this was only at a bureaucratic level. While Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visited the Iranian Embassy, Modi remained silent on the matter.<\/p>\n
India has effectively surrendered its strategic interests in Iran and has openly sided with the US and Israel. Modi\u2019s government has lost faith in India\u2019s own strengths and prestige. Despite Trump\u2019s humiliation, the chaining of Indian citizens, mockery of the prime minister, bullying into asymmetrical tariff war and agreement, Modi merrily clings to the coat tails of Trump.<\/p>\n
US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, in Munich Security Council, spoke of uniting US-EU in civilisational war against global south, laid bare the Trump\u2019s desire to return to imperialist world order, where whites dominate the rest. Summed up as East India Company 2.0 by various observers, the speech has failed to draw any response from Modi government.<\/p>\n
In absence of any structured or intellectual articulation to the design outlined at Munich, it is easy to assume that Modi government has willingly accepted to play the role of an ally in Trump\u2019s project, despite the fact that India would be at the receiving end of such an attempt. Any such plan by US would certainly threaten the sovereignty and autonomy of India, yet the choice seems to have been made.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the reason, India failed to protect IRIS Dena, or even express displeasure at the attack on a unarmed guest by US. There has been no official protest on US submarine venturing near India\u2019s waters. India and US are signatories to bilateral agreements COMCASA and BECA. These allow for real-time secure communication between Indian and US military platforms, such as aircraft and ships and also enable the sharing of high-end geospatial intelligence, including nautical and aeronautical charts. Did US share the intelligence with India before attacking Dena, which India chose not to share with Iran? Or US didn\u2019t abide by the agreement and kept India in dark? Either way, if the Jaishankar\u2019s words had any meaning in Raisina Dialogue, India should have raised its concerns or expressed displeasure with US.<\/p>\n
But it didn\u2019t. Jaishankar, at Raisina, addressed the sinking by saying:<\/p>\n
“Iranian ships were on fleet review but got on the wrong side of events.”<\/p>\n
This statement is simply a case of evasive diplomatic jargon. It places the onus on Iran, as having erred in being present in a war zone. Jaishankar remained mum about the laws of naval warfare, about UNCLOS, or about the legality of sinking a non-combatant vessel in international waters.<\/p>\n
Jaishankar didn\u2019t question whether the United States had the right to conduct military operations in the Indian Ocean without Indian consultation. But he had the gumption of pronouncing that multipolarity meant no power could make decisions and expect the rest of the world to simply accept them, accepted, without a public word of challenge.<\/p>\n
These words sound hollow when India cant even raise the matter of US aggression in India’s own declared strategic domain. A country that allowed the second Iranian ship IRIS Lavan to dock at Kochi as ‘the humane thing to do\u2019 and not as a legal obligation under international maritime law, is strategically and ethically a weak nation. Modi has made India so, regardless of pompous words at Raisina Dialogues.<\/p>\n
The paradox of sharp tongue and weak knees was captured best by Jaishankar\u2019s words that policymakers must understand the world as it truly is, not as they wish it to be.<\/p>\n
It is this outlook that has forced Modi to accept the might of Trump, despite his insults and bullying. Modi has decided to accept Trump\u2019s hegemony, without challenging it. Jaishankar and Misri may still be remembering lessons learnt in Nehruvian India, that cherished multipolarity, self – determination, strategic autonomy, inclusive rule making and national interest framed within ethical conduct. But the reality of Modisque India is different, subservient to the great power, unethical, and lacking in courage to stand up to insult to the nation and stand up for sovereignty. Strategic autonomy is not restricted to mere eloquent speeches.<\/p>\n
Jaishankar said at Raisina that India’s rise would be determined by India. That\u2019s what India desires. Sadly, at present, India\u2019s fall as a leading global player is being determined by his government, led by Modi.<\/p>\n
Gurdeep Singh Sappal is Permanent Invitee, Congress Working Committee.<\/p>\n
This article went live on March ninth, two thousand twenty six, at twenty-six minutes past eleven in the morning.<\/p>\n