The story behind the surrender

Violation of sovereignty is defined as an infringement on a nation's territorial integrity or an interference with governmental functions. Arm-twisting is pressurising someone into doing something they are unwilling to do. Surrender comes when one stops resisting and submits to the other side’s authority.

What has happened between the United States of America and Bharat is a model of clarity, and understanding it requires no more than reading the statements put out. In his Executive Order 14329 of 6 August 2025, Donald Trump writes: 'I determined that it was necessary and appropriate to impose an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent on imports of articles of India, which, at that time, was directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.'

Now, on 6 February, his executive order tells us: 'Specifically, India has committed to stop directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil, has represented that it will purchase United States energy products from the United States, and has recently committed to a framework with the United States to expand defense cooperation over the next 10 years.'

Having found that India is now behaving the way America wants, Trump says: 'Accordingly, I have determined to eliminate the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed on India.'

This additional duty imposed on India was removed for good behaviour, or, to speak more diplomatically, for compliance. However, Trump has warned us, America 'shall monitor whether India resumes directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil' and if this happens, 'I should reimpose the additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent on imports of articles of India'.

This is not all. The submitting nation has to do more. The statement put out by Bharat says: 'India intends to purchase $500 billion' of US products over the next five years. That is $100 billion a year. In 2024, it was $40 billion. India has committed to buy more than double the products from the US as it has in the past.

What has it got in return? A ‘reduced’ tariff of 18 per cent where none previously existed. This is our reward. Violation of sovereignty? Check. Arm-twisting? Check. Surrender? Unfortunately, yes. As I said, the agreement is a model of clarity. One does not need to listen to what Jaishankar and the Indian government says; one only needs to read the document we have signed.

The question is why we capitulated. My friend, economist Ashok Bardhan, sent out a message before the deal was signed, in which he anticipated what would happen and tried to explain it. He writes there are two reasons for yielding on the Indian side: 'First, the so-called nationalist credentials of this government and its support base are grossly exaggerated. The nationalist card is transactional and mostly meant for domestic purposes, to be whipped out in the context of elections and to energize the base with the Pakistan specter, but not to be resorted to when it comes to dealing with the big boys.

'Even the shocked reaction to the concessions on the agricultural front ignore the fact that, above all else, the ruling party is a party of the urban elite, regardless of what they say about the farmers' interests being paramount in their scheme of things.'

Further, among the few dynamic sectors in India's economy, the two that play the greatest role are the technology sector and finance, and 'both are intricately joined at the hip to US markets and heavily dependent on linkages to US firms and funding'.

Some 70 per cent of the total output of India’s information technology-related sectors are exports to the United States. India exported some $40 billion in services to America in 2024. And America is the primary source of portfolio inflows into India through its hedge funds, pension funds and mutual funds.

"Literally every aspect and structure of Indian financial markets is linked primarily to the US, from venture funding to financial research to financial news outlets, and so forth,” Bardhan says. There we have it. Our nationalism, our bravado, our 56-inch chest is meant to bully and threaten other Indians (though even this will need to be reconsidered given how afraid we have become of female parliamentarians). In the face of a real adversary, it wilts.

Trump understands us, it should be accepted. This is not the first time he has bent us to his will. In May 2019, India was forced to stop buying oil from Iran after Trump disallowed a waiver. Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton wrote in his book, The Room Where it Happened, that Trump dismissed Modi’s concerns, telling his team that "he’ll be okay", with the decision.

What this meant was a denial to India of oil that had come with concessions such as free transport and insurance, and 60 days of credit. India tried to explain that many of its refineries had been calibrated to process Irani crude and couldn’t suddenly shift, and also that the stopping of supply from Iran would affect prices and inflation.

Trump would have none of it, and we complied then as we have complied again with reference to Russian oil and the purchasing now of Venezuelan and American oil.

We must return to where we started, because it is important that Indians know what has been done in their name. Sovereignty is violated by foreign interference in governmental functions. Surrender comes when one stops resisting and submits to the other side’s authority.

Views are personal. More of Aakar Patel’s writing may be read here