A Thought for the Times
Power rarely announces itself politely.
It threatens first, negotiates later, and demands obedience disguised as “rules.”
From the day Donald Trump assumed office, the message was unmistakable:
Agree, or pay the price.
50%.
100%.
Now 500% tariffs.
This is not trade policy.
This is coercion dressed up as economics.
Once, Trump was laughed off as a loud, crude fool. Today, that laughter feels misplaced. The clownish noise may have reduced, but something colder has taken its place — a brutal confidence that assumes the world will fall in line.
History tells us that the United States has never been shy about interfering in other nations’ politics. Regime change, destabilisation, economic strangulation — these are not new tools. But what we are witnessing now feels more naked, more impatient, more reckless.
Venezuela is only one example. Environmental commitments are discarded without a second thought. Tariffs are weaponised. Allies are spoken to in the language once reserved for adversaries.
And India is not immune.
We trade with Russia. We buy oil where it suits our interests. For that, we are told to brace for punishment — not because we violated any international law, but because we refused to submit.
The irony is hard to miss. These very policies are hurting the American economy itself. Yet concern for consequences seems absent. Power, once tasted, often stops listening to reason.
So where does that leave countries like ours?
Here is an uncomfortable question worth asking:
Why is India not being treated like Venezuela?
The answer does not lie in diplomacy alone. It lies in deterrence.
There was a time when India could have been pushed around — economically, politically, even militarily. That time ended in May 1998. When Atal Bihari Vajpayee took the political call, and Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam ensured its execution, India crossed an invisible line.
Nuclear capability did not make India aggressive.
It made India unpushable.
Missiles like Agni and Prithvi, strategic autonomy, indigenous defence systems — these were not vanity projects. They were insurance policies against a world that respects strength more than morality.
Today, the West may not like India’s independent stance. It may wish India were weaker, more compliant, more easily “managed.” But wishing is not the same as doing.
They may grind their teeth in frustration, but they are forced to tolerate us.
That tolerance was not granted.
It was earned.
And this leads to another uncomfortable thought:
If India had remained strategically weak, would elections alone have protected us from external pressure?
Would governments have been allowed to stand?
Would leaders have been spared?
History offers sobering answers.
India’s security did not happen by accident.
It was built — deliberately, quietly, and at great cost.
As tariffs rise and global pressure mounts, perhaps the real question for readers is this:
In a world that respects power before principle, are we willing to forget how fragile sovereignty truly is?
Pause.
Reflect.
And remember why some decisions, taken decades ago, still protect us today.
