Depending on if you are a glass half full or glass half empty kind of person, you can judge the recently concluded Trump-Putin summit either way. Pessimists will say nothing happened towards ending the Russia-Ukraine war. Optimists (including yours truly) will say at least a start has been made. There’s news of talks and negotations with Ukraine as well, and let us hope the war comes to an end.
What Alaska didn’t provide however, was a clarity on what’s happening with the 50% tariffs, which were suddenly imposed on Indian exports to the USA. The 25% overall tariff, and an additional 25% penalty tariff for doing business with Russia is unique to India, at least this point. Some economists call tariffs as ‘acts of war,’ so devastating can be their impact.
Even as we prepare to live in this new reality, we must not give up foreign diplomacy efforts to reverse, or at least put these onerous tariffs on hold until a fresh, comprehensive, well thought through trade agreement is reached. For this, we perhaps need to revisit our foreign policy, which has tilted towards assertiveness in the past few years. Today, that assertiveness needs to be balanced with accommodation, using a nuanced approach. For this, let’s revisit India’s newfound “assertive” approach first.
Human beings are social animals. We cannot survive without interacting, cooperating, considering, and living alongside other humans. And yet, every now and then, we as individuals have to assert ourselves against others.
The unfair boss who gives you too much work and pays you too little—until the day you decide to assert yourself and call him out. The person who tries to jump the queue you’ve patiently stood in—until you tell him off. The friend who takes advantage of you—until you finally tell them it has to stop.
While it’s all well and good to teach our kids how to cooperate with others, we all know that unless they also learn how to stand up for themselves, they will be taken advantage of in life. Being assertive, even if not always elegant, is necessary.
Nations need to be assertive too, particularly those aspiring for greater stature and power. In the case of nations, assertiveness usually means standing firm with other countries. This often involves not kowtowing to more powerful nations, asserting one’s own interests, and taking action independently.
For example, ignoring sanctions imposed by one country on another can be a sign of assertiveness. Disregarding climate change targets set by others may be another. Refusing to dismantle a nuclear weapons program is yet another.
Other examples include refusing to permanently align with a bloc led by a superpower, taking military action despite opposition, or resisting tariff threats. These are all varying degrees of assertiveness, depending on the context.
As stated earlier, whether for individuals or nations, a certain level of assertiveness is essential—otherwise, people or the world will walk over you. All rising powers become more assertive as their per capita income, military strength, market size, or competitiveness increases.
China, for example, is significantly more assertive today than it was three decades ago. This correlates with its remarkable growth in economic output, military capability, and manufacturing strength. In fact, China now asserts itself on almost every major global issue. Many experts already regard it as a near-superpower.
India has also grown more assertive, especially over the past two to three decades. From the nuclear deal to strategic non-alignment to membership in the Quad and BRICS, India is standing up for itself more than before. In recent years, this assertiveness has become increasingly visible and public.
Today, assertiveness often includes loud proclamations on social media about bold decisions made by India. The local media amplifies these messages, often presenting them as small diplomatic victories. This underlines and reinforces the sense of national assertiveness.
These public declarations also serve domestic political interests. Ministers whose official roles involve diplomacy are often celebrated by nationalist supporters as heroes—complete with laser eyes memes—for “putting other nations in their place.”
And this is where assertiveness can go too far. When it no longer just serves our self-interest, but also shames or humiliates others, it creates a problem. It may alienate entire nations, making it awkward or difficult to restore relations or conduct business with them in the future.
It can also result in over-assertiveness—too much, too soon. There’s a difference between an employee respectfully confronting their boss about unfair compensation and throwing a glass of water in their boss’s face. The latter is not only inappropriate but also beyond the authority—or aukaat—of the employee.
If the owner of the company did the same thing to the boss, they might get away with it. But the employee certainly cannot.
This highlights the importance of mastering the fine art of knowing not only when to be assertive, but also how much to assert.
India is undeniably rising and evolving. We are not the same nation we were thirty years ago. However, we still have a relatively low per capita income and limited global influence compared to others. This is not an insult—it’s simply being realistic.
If we continue progressing over the next two decades, outperforming others, we will naturally have more room to be assertive. For now, our assertiveness should be dialed down and calibrated in line with our true global standing.
Additionally, assertiveness should always serve a clear, constructive purpose—not to insult or demean others.
In Chinese culture, for instance, there’s the concept of guanxi, which includes the idea of “giving face.” It means that even in negotiations or disagreements, one should always respect the other party and avoid causing them humiliation.
At the national level, even though China pursues its own interests unapologetically, it rarely mocks or ridicules other countries.
Diplomacy and foreign policy—like human relationships—require fine-tuning two dials: being assertive and being accomodative.
A person with strong friendships and professional relationships often achieves more than someone who insists on going it alone. This is where accommodation comes in. Sometimes we can afford to concede on issues of little consequence. In doing so, we build goodwill—favors that can be called in later.
Savvy businesspeople and politicians understand this. They build networks by helping others and collecting “I owe yous” over time, which they can use strategically when needed.
India should look for such opportunities—areas where it can be helpful or supportive to other nations without compromising independence.
Ask any wise person with life experience, and they’ll tell you that life is a series of give and take. The same applies to international relations. Many countries and world leaders have specific projects or agendas where India could play a helpful role.
Even if we’ve taken assertive stances with them in the past, as long as we did so respectfully, we can still choose to be accommodative on other issues. That’s how diplomacy works.
The country with the best relationships—and the person with the best people skills—isn’t the one who is the most assertive. It’s the one who knows how to strike a balance: when to stand up for themselves, and when to stand beside others.
India’s foreign policy should embody this balance—and revisit and recaliberate it regularly, in response to global events and changing realities.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict may resolve itself in two weeks, or it may go on for two more years. India meanwhile will have to be prepared to deal with this tariff problem, and retune its foreign policy to accommodate America a bit more, in order to get a resolution to the penal tariffs.