US President Donald Trump recently imposed substantial tariffs on Indian goods, explicitly in response to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil during the ongoing Ukraine conflict. These penalties, reaching an unprecedented cumulative rate of 50% on targeted Indian exports, have been described by Trump as a response to what his administration has called an “unusual and extraordinary threat” posed by India’s trade relations with Russia. The official rationale for these measures centres on national security and foreign policy priorities and their design is to coerce India into aligning with US policy goals vis-à-vis the Russia-Ukraine war.

The enforcement of these tariffs is notable among other things for its selectivity. While India faces acute economic repercussions, other major importers of Russian oil such as China and Turkey have thus far not been subjected to equivalent sanctions. The impact is also likely to be immediate and severe since almost half of Indian exports to the US, which is in fact India’s most significant export market, now encounter sharply higher costs, threatening widespread disruption in sectors such as textiles, automobile parts, pharmaceuticals, and electronics. Thus the tariffs have provoked a strong diplomatic response from the Government of India, which has characterised the US’s actions as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” while also asserting its primary responsibility to protect the country’s energy security.

This fracas is reminiscent of US-India relations in the early 1990s regarding the former’s denial of cryogenic engine technology. In this period, the US government actively intervened to block the transfer of cryogenic rocket engines and associated technologies from Russia’s Glavkosmos to ISRO by invoking the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) as justification. The MTCR was established in 1987 and was intended to prevent the proliferation of missile delivery systems capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. In 1992, citing non-proliferation concerns, the US imposed sanctions on both ISRO and Glavkosmos, effectively stalling a deal that would have allowed India to acquire not only fully assembled engines but also the vital expertise for indigenous production in a much shorter timeframe than what transpired.

The stated US concern was that cryogenic technology could potentially be adapted for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). However experts had been clear that cryogenic engines are unsuitable for ICBMs because they’re complex, difficult to operate, and can’t be deployed on short notice. In fact, critics as well as historical analyses that followed later have said that the US’s strategic objective was less concerned with preventing missile proliferation and more with restricting advances in India’s ability to launch heavy satellites, thus protecting American and allied commercial and strategic interests in the global space sector.

The response in both eras, economic plus technological coercion, suggests a pattern of American policy: punitive action when India’s sovereign decisions diverge from perceived US security or geoeconomic imperatives. The explicit justifications have also shifted from non-proliferation in the 1990s to support for Ukraine in the present, yet in both cases the US has singled India our for selective enforcement while comparable actions by other states have been allowed to proceed largely unchallenged.

Thus, both actions have produced parallel outcomes. India faced immediate setbacks: export disruptions today; delays in its space launch programme three decades ago. There is an opportunity however. The technology denial in the 1990s catalysed an ambitious indigenous cryogenic engine programme, culminating in landmark achievements for ISRO in the following decades. Similarly, the current trade rift could accelerate India’s efforts to diversify its partnerships and supply chains if it proactively forges strategic trade agreements with emerging and established economies, invests in advanced domestic manufacturing capabilities, incentivises innovation across critical sectors, and fortifies logistical infrastructure.

Diplomatically, however, each episode has strained US-India relations even as their mutual interests have at other times fostered rapprochement. Whenever India’s independent strategic choices appear to challenge core US interests, Washington has thus far used the levers of market access and technology transfers as the means of compulsion. But history suggests that these efforts, rather than yield compliance, could prompt adaptive strategies, whether through indigenous technology development or by recalibrating diplomatic and economic alignments.

Featured image: I don’t know which rocket that is. Credit: Perplexity AI.