Opinion India cannot lead if it stays silent on Trump’s bullying
India’s responsibilities cannot be reduced to short-term transactional calculations. Leadership entails the defence of a rules-based order.
US President Donald Trump. (Photo: AP) Jalte ghar ko dekhne walon, phoos ka chhappar aapka hai/ Aag ke peeche tez hawa hai, aage muqaddar aapka hai/ Us ke qatl pe main bhi chup tha, mera number ab aaya/ Mere qatl pe aap bhi chup hain, agla number aapka hai. (O you who watch the burning house, the thatched roof of straw is yours; Behind the fire roars a fierce wind, ahead lies your fate. When he was slain, I too stayed silent — now my turn has come. At my murder you stand mute — the next number is yours.)
Nawaz Deobandi’s grim warning about the “spreading fire” and the folly of the silent spectator offers a befitting frame for today’s global strategic dilemma. Following the unprecedented abduction of a sitting head of state, the prospect of Greenland’s acquisition has shifted from a Trumpian eccentricity to an unsettling possibility. The shockwaves hitting Europe signal a breakdown of international norms that threatens the doorstep of every sovereign nation — sooner or later.
An Indian Express editorial’s call (‘Trump’s Greenland push needs a pushback from Europe’, January 19) for India to “keep its head down” is not pragmatic statecraft, it is strategic self-effacement. It risks pushing India into irrelevance at a moment when its global role demands clarity and conviction. It also sits uneasily with India’s aspiration to be a vishwaguru — an identity, as the RSS chief recently emphasised, rooted in the civilisational principles of dharma. As the world’s fifth-largest economy and a nuclear power, India’s responsibilities cannot be reduced to short-term transactional calculations. Leadership entails the defence of a rules-based order. The prescription — that Europe should “push back” against Trumpian brinkmanship while India quietly secures its deals — risks bartering our moral capital for short-term transactional gain.
This is neither an argument for abandoning strategic prudence nor for jeopardising the landmark trade agreement with the EU. Rather, it is a recognition that this diplomatic milestone coincides with a period of profound global instability, forcing India to confront a strategic dilemma: How to pursue transformative economic partnerships while simultaneously defending the Westphalian system — the foundation of the sovereign-state order currently facing its gravest threat.
The real challenge, therefore, is not to choose between these imperatives but to design a diplomacy that integrates them. India must demonstrate that a principled stance on foundational issues such as sovereignty — exemplified by the Greenland controversy — is not an impediment to commerce. It is the bedrock of a stable, predictable international system in which trade and lasting partnerships can thrive. We must reject the false binary between values and interests. Our economic engagements are deepened and made more resilient by an unwavering commitment to a just, rules-based global order.
In a climate where the US has shown a willingness to abduct heads of state, abandon allies, and plunge regions into chaos, the Greenland crisis presents a test of systemic resilience. For India, this moment crystallises a critical strategic choice: Remain a passive spectator to the erosion of sovereignty as a normative principle, or actively shape its role as a champion of stability.
In an escalating crisis in which states’ sovereignty is bartered or bullied, India cannot afford strategic silence. To do so would tacitly legitimise a world where might makes right — a world in which India’s own security and strategic autonomy could one day be held hostage to the caprice of greater powers. Securing a trade deal while the global order crumbles would be a pyrrhic victory. Preserving the international system that gives such agreements meaning and longevity should be our paramount strategic task. As a civilisational state, India will ultimately be judged by its willingness to choose principle over passivity when it matters most.
The writer is dean, Faculty of International Studies, Aligarh Muslim University
Share
