---

America moves without thinking, India thinks without moving and China is the grand master, thinking and then moving

Over years spent observing global events and decisions, it’s become apparent that a trend has played out time and again in history. 

America embodies the spirit of action – swift and bold, often preceding thought. For better or worse, it is a nation of action, even if the action is miscalculated. From the Iraq invasion in 2003  to current tariff wars, the US moves first and figures it out later.

India, on the other hand, is rich in ideas but tends to get stuck in analysis and debate, resulting in delayed or no action. Grand projects like Smart Cities , Industrial Corridor, Startup India and Make in India are unveiled with fanfare and then quietly buried under bureaucratic rubble.

 China, in contrast, thinks in decades. It builds slowly and strategically. Then, when it moves, it leaves the world stunned – whether it’s turning Shenzhen into a tech mecca or building an AI app called DeepSeek, that shakes Wall Street and triggers a $1 trillion drop in US tech valuations overnight. 

In their differences lies a pattern, a deeper truth about how civilizations choose to engage with the world: through impulse, introspection or integration. America is known for taking The Bold Action, but never assesses At What Cost? India has tremendous potential and brainpower, but systemic inertia slows progress. China’s ability to think and act in harmony provides it a strong edge.

Troubling signs of submissiveness

In the global balance of power, strength is often measured not just by military might or economic numbers but also by the willingness to stand firm under pressure.

India showed such strength in 2008 with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s stance regarding the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement. Despite leading a fragile coalition, Singh held his ground. Under immense international pressure to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, he secured a historic NSG waiver without compromising India’s nuclear autonomy.

Singh pushed the deal through the Indian Parliament amidst fierce domestic opposition, including a no-confidence motion, and simultaneously secured a historic waiver from the NSG in 2008 – without signing the NPT or compromising India’s nuclear autonomy. The deal ended India’s post-1998 isolation and showcased strategic clarity, political courage, and firm diplomacy.

In the current period, Russia and China both have displayed boldness. When the US imposed sanctions on Russia, Moscow didn’t flinch – it adapted, recalibrated its economy and adjusted its foreign policy to endure Western pressure. China, faced with aggressive tariffs under Trump, responded decisively – retaliating both economically and diplomatically, signaling it wouldn’t be bullied into submission.

India, meanwhile, charted a softer course marked by submission. Rather than assert its sovereign interests, it appeared to appease Washington. The Modi government’s handling of Trump-era tariffs lacked both conviction and assertiveness. Even the basic level of strategic autonomy seen in 2008 now appears missing.  India has shown the world that, despite its size and potential, it remains hesitant when boldness is most needed. 

In contrast to Russia and China, India’s response to US pressure under Trump was marked by submission rather than strength.

From global power aspirant to client state?

After winning the US presidential election, Trump invited Xi Jinping to his inauguration but snubbed Modi – despite Modi’s repeatedly having called him a “close friend.” Modi was eventually invited, in February, but the visit was a low-key, business-first affair, typical of a working visit.

Trump, who often labeled India a “tariff king” and a “trade abuser,” continued his hardline stance. To appease him, the Modi government made several economic concessions ahead of the visit, including slashing customs duties on high-end motorcycles like Harley-Davidson from 50% to 30%, and reducing average tariffs from 13% to 11%. India also stepped back from its 2024 BRICS push for de-dollarization after Trump threatened penalties.

Despite these overtures, Trump remained focused on narrowing the US trade deficit – claiming it was $100 billion, double the actual figure of $45.7 billion. Modi, notably, did not challenge this exaggeration during their joint press conference. In return, Trump announced expanded military sales, including F-35 jets, and increased oil and gas exports to India. 

Yet, the optics quickly soured. Just two days after Modi’s U.S. visit, two American military aircraft carrying 228 deported Indians – including women, children, and infants – landed in Amritsar. Images of Indians in chains circulated widely, sparking outrage and highlighting two uncomfortable truths: India’s economy is failing to generate sufficient jobs for its youth – 10 million  annual new labor market entrants – and Washington offers no special treatment to its so-called allies.

Trump’s approach has been transactional and dismissive – imposing tariffs and pressing India on trade and immigration while giving little in return. The US treats India less like a strategic partner and more like a subordinate expected to comply.

India was once seen as a rising global power – rich in democracy, resources and potential to rival China. But under Modi’s decade-long leadership its global stature has declined. India’s current trajectory, coupled with its international treatment, is beginning to resemble that of nations like Ukraine and Pakistan that struggled to convert their potential into real global influence.

Is India in danger of becoming a failed state?

A critical aspect of India’s fall from grace is the erosion of its democratic foundations. Over the last decade, the Modi government shifted towards authoritarianism. The very thing that made India unique – a vibrant democracy where mistakes could be made and corrected – has been destroyed.

India never was destined to grow as fast as China, but its democratic model allowed for sustainable, steady progress. The strength of India’s democracy was in its ability to adapt, to learn from mistakes and to evolve. In the last decade, however, this foundational strength has been compromised. The government’s lack of accountability and its increasing centralization of power have stifled the growth of critical institutions.

Today the public feels disconnected as the government fails to tackle core issues like unemployment, corruption and poverty. A common sentiment is that while China was  preparing for the fourth industrial revolution and the era of artificial intelligence, India was busy finding ancient temples. 

India’s foreign policy, once seen as wise and balanced, now appears misguided. The country has failed to assert its influence in key global negotiations. Amid the Russia-Ukraine war, India’s decision to continue importing oil from Russia, despite Western sanctions, has sparked criticism. 

This decision, while financially pragmatic in the short term, has long-term consequences. The very things that made India unique – its democratic values and its non-aligned stance – have been compromised. 

India is increasingly perceived as trading principles for short-term gains, weakening the credibility of its foreign policy. Its growing dependence on Russian energy and its lack of alternative sources leave it vulnerable. President Trump’s recent warning about potential secondary tariffs on Russian oil further complicates the situation, especially given Russia’s role as a top crude supplier to India. This energy reliance opens India to external pressure, with global powers using its needs as a leverage.

The challenge is critical. Modi’s combination of strong rhetoric and weak results has pushed India to the edge. As the global order shifts, if India cannot assert itself as a strong, independent nation, it may soon find itself – like Ukraine – a pawn in a game it cannot control. The time for meaningful change is now—before the trajectory is set and irreversible. 

Ravi Kant is a columnist and correspondent for Asia Times based in New Delhi. He mainly writes on economics, international politics and technology. He has wide experience in the financial world and some of his research and analyses have been quoted by the US Congress, Harvard University and Wikipedia (Chinese Dream). He is also the author of the book Coronavirus: A Pandemic or Plandemic. He tweets @Rk_humour.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.