India needs a clear-eyed China policy that serves its own interest, not that of other powers

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi with PM Narendra Modi in New Delhi. (Source: NarendraModi/X)

Amid the intensifying trade and tech rivalry between the world’s two superpowers, the U.S. and China, especially in the post-Covid period, India has alarmingly rushed to cast itself as a counterweight to China—hoping to reap commercial and strategic dividends by deepening ties with the US.

This effort, however, comes against the backdrop of India’s deep-rooted economic dependence on China for critical inputs and intermediates which are further processed into finished goods for domestic consumption and exports. The clearest examples of this dependence can be seen in sectors such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, and solar energy. This tangled economic web renders India’s counterweight ambitions precariously fragile.

Therefore, positioning itself too aggressively as an anti-China force places India squarely at the forefront of the US-led strategic tussle, inviting increasing pressure from both sides.

Caught in the crossfire

Beijing’s targeted export controls—particularly on rare earth magnets and sensitive inputs—appear less an isolated economic manoeuvre than a calculated response to India’s Western pivot and its disruptive ambitions in high-tech supply chains.

Simultaneously, the US weaponises its economic clout against India—imposing draconian 25% tariffs and threatening an additional 25%—to coerce India into abandoning affordable Russian oil and military supplies in favour of costly American alternatives.

The Trump administration's tariff brinkmanship exposes India’s perilous over-reliance on the US market, effectively turning a strategic partner into an economic overlord.

In the recent past, the US has compelled India to forsake competitively priced Iranian oil and played a role in India restricting Chinese telecom firms like Huawei and ZTE from its 5G rollout.

Strategic autonomy is incompatible with a strategic tilt

India has long emphasized strategic autonomy and multi-alignment, balancing relations and resisting hard “bloc” commitments. Yet recent years have seen a clear tilt toward the US. This alignment, while promising some benefits, has fundamentally compromised India’s ability to navigate geopolitics independently and exposed it to economic coercion, as evidenced by abrupt Trump’s tariff imposition that fractured what once was a burgeoning commercial and strategic partnership between the world’s oldest and largest democracies.

This costly experience must serve as a harsh wake-up call for India’s commercial and diplomatic establishments, and business leaders to not put all their eggs in one (U.S.) basket.

Over-identification with the West risks eroding India’s influence among nations that value its non-aligned legacy and balanced global approach. Overselling the counterweight narrative could force India into premature or risky geopolitical commitments, leaving less room to manoeuvre—especially if Western priorities shift or if China’s approach toward India changes. Moreover, if India is seen as failing to live up to its narrative, its bargaining position in future negotiations could be weakened.

Counterweight narrative is backfiring

Multiple glaring issues highlight why this strategy of India as a counterweight to China is not just faltering—it is backfiring spectacularly.

The narrative was initially strengthened by Western desires—especially the US—to elevate India as a bulwark against China. However, with the US now imposing steep tariffs, India's special status is conspicuously diminished, exposing the risks of aligning its strategic identity too closely with US/Western interests. Choosing one superpower (the U.S.) over another (China) exposes India to unilateral and unpredictable decisions that can undermine its economic growth and trade ambitions.

Over-emphasising its counterweight role can lead to expectations from the US/West that may not align with Indian interests, and can alienate crucial partners such as Russia or even China, especially amid shifting global alliances.

 If India primarily presents itself as a China alternative to the West, any rift such as Trump’s tariff, leaves it with less flexibility to recalibrate towards other countries or economic blocs such as BRICS or Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

India’s dependence on China for critical imports remains significant. Thus, India overselling itself as a counterweight without sufficiently reducing these dependencies makes it vulnerable to Chinese economic or technological coercion.

Focusing only on a narrative, without substantive shifts in manufacturing or supply chain diversification, could leave India overly exposed in crisis.

Besides, India’s aggressive positioning as a counterweight to China might complicate bilateral rapprochement efforts and reduce room for pragmatic engagement, limiting access to Chinese markets.

Similarly, excessive hype also risks a profound credibility gap should India fail to deliver on its promises of reliability, scale, or returns—especially amid policy shocks like Chinese export bans or US tariffs. Such failures will deter foreign and multinational investors from anchoring supply chains in India for the foreseeable future.

To sum up, India’s aggressive positioning as the West’s counterweight to China remains a risky bet — one that breeds over-reliance on Western goodwill, exposes the country to abrupt trade shocks, and erodes its long-term strategic autonomy and economic security.

Reversion to pragmatism

Recent diplomatic overtures, with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Wi on a visit to New Delhi pledging to address India’s concerns over critical supplies like rare earths, fertilisers, and infrastructure equipment such as tunnel boring machines, highlight the potential benefits of a more balanced and pragmatic approach.

As both nations signal a willingness to de-escalate tensions and rebuild trust, it is imperative for India to urgently recalibrate its China policy—focusing on securing stable commercial partnerships and critical resources, rather than locking itself into binary alignments that demand unwavering commitment to a single power bloc, be it China or the US.