What India can learn from US-China trade talks

China and the US contest each other’s influence while collaborating where necessary, never allowing ideological purity to obstruct geopolitical calculus. It is a lesson India must absorb with clarity

So much for the world going gaga over Donald Trump’s trade tariffs being the economic sledgehammer on China. In the end, both sides shook hands, paused their tariff war, and walked away with smiles.

Washington called it “a total reset”; Beijing labelled it an “important consensus.” Tariffs were scaled back by over 100 percentage points to a 10% baseline. A new channel of economic dialogue was unveiled. Both parties emerged appearing strategic, purposeful, and unyielding.

It was a deliberate statecraft and a well-staged performance in the theatre of international perception. And the world? Fooled again. Actually, played.

As a superpower aspirant, whether it acknowledges it or not, India cannot afford to be a passive observer of these developments.

There are two nations India must engage with boldly and without hesitation — the United States, and China. The reasons for engagement differ, as do the strategies required, yet the imperative remains clear. If India is to meaningfully shape its global role in the 21st century, it must internalise how these powers craft narrative, construct long-range strategic architecture, and navigate complexity.

The US and China have long mastered the strategic utility of narrative. They bend perception to their advantage, often recasting confrontation as maturity and rivalry as constructive engagement. What began as a punitive tariff war during Trump’s presidency was recast in Geneva as a calibrated reset between global heavyweights.

Power of narrative control

One cannot ignore the larger amnesia at play. The world, with all its moral indignation and rhetorical commitment to justice, seems to have conveniently forgotten China’s foundational role in unleashing and mishandling a global pandemic that disrupted lives, livelihoods, and entire economies. Yet China continues to stride into negotiations with the assertiveness of a nation unburdened by history. That, too, is the power of narrative control.

China enters every negotiation with a civilisational arc embedded in its worldview. The US arrives equipped with institutional authority and a near-monopoly on global storytelling. India, by comparison, continues to straddle an uneasy space. We are rich in ambition but reticent in posture.

Despite robust economic growth, our ability to shape global negotiation tables is hampered by structural limitations: weak trade capacity, fragmented domestic alignment, and underdeveloped policy musculature in domains like global commerce, climate action, and technology governance. India, by contrast, has often ceded narrative space. In today’s multipolar order, perception is the focus in itself.

Yet, in one key respect, China and the US remain aligned — they both practise strategic dualism. They contest each other’s influence while collaborating where necessary, never allowing ideological purity to obstruct geopolitical calculus. It is a lesson India must absorb with clarity.

Think long-term, signal now

Both powers engage with a time horizon of decades while maintaining the agility to act with urgency. China’s aspiration to redefine the global order is neither concealed nor understated. It is manifest in every dimension of its foreign, trade, and security strategy.

The US leverages deep institutional networks, strategic alliances, and normative leadership to maintain its primacy. Even amid domestic turbulence, Washington projects continuity through military posture, financial instruments, and a highly narrative-savvy diplomatic apparatus.

India must do both. We must embed our global posture within a multi-decade strategic vision. India cannot afford to remain a swing state in global affairs.

Quiet capability is strategic capital

Beneath Geneva’s performative diplomacy lies the more essential reality. Both countries have cultivated deep structural capability over the years — if not decades. China has invested comprehensively in technological self-reliance, logistics architecture, State-backed research and development, and sovereign digital infrastructure. The US retains unparalleled influence through its command over global finance, reserve currency regimes, and control points across transnational supply chains.

India’s growth story is real and commendable. Yet we must view capability-building not as a technocratic priority but as the scaffolding of strategic power. Semiconductors, artificial intelligence, logistics corridors, energy resilience, and capital market reform are no longer siloed concerns. They are instruments of geopolitical leverage.

Aggression without apology

One of the most instructive elements of the US-China dynamic is their unapologetic assertiveness. Both nations pursue their interests with clarity and conviction.

India must do the same. Our civilisational depth, democratic resilience, and demographic momentum already serve as structural strengths.

We must release ourselves from the comfort of caution. Domestic discourse frequently dilutes strategic momentum by indulging in caricature. We reduce leaders to simplistic stereotypes, assessing their credibility through the lens of region, diction, or cultural coding. We casually refer to ‘Punjabi bravado’, ‘Gujarati enterprise’, ‘South Indian caution’, or ‘Delhi aggression’, thereby undermining the emergence of a unified national strategic character.

Where is our cohesive diplomatic identity?

Where is the distinct Indian style that fuses the gravitas of our civilisation with the tactical precision of a contemporary power?

From participation to architecture

Washington and Beijing play the game of global supremacy, it is architected. India must abandon the habit of awaiting entry into elite circles of diplomacy. What remains is the cultivation of strategic rigour, national coherence, and the courage to assert India’s interests on its own terms.

In navigating relationships with the West, India continues to confront embedded asymmetries. Although bilateral partnerships are deepening, India is often perceived through a hybrid lens. There is admiration, but also a residue of condescension. The West engages with India out of strategic necessity, but hesitates to treat it as a peer. This framing may not be overt, but it influences the substance of engagement across trade, technology, security, and climate.

These perceptions arise not only from colonial legacies, but also from structural divergence. India’s stage of economic development, its unique social contract, and its independent approach to modernity render it an unfamiliar terrain for Western powers. Because India does not mirror the Western development model, it is viewed as exceptional — yet not entirely embraced.

For precisely this reason, India must frame its own aspirations, and reject inherited categories of global alignment. The world is not waiting, or cares.

Srinath Sridharan, author of ‘Family and Dhanda’, is a corporate adviser and independent director on corporate boards. X: @ssmumbai, Instagram: @AuthorSrinath.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.