Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s back-to-back visits to Japan and China are taking place at a very important moment for the global economy. The administration in Washington, under Donald Trump’s presidency, is growing increasingly hostile as India experiments with a cautious reset in its relations with Beijing while also strengthening its supply chain and investment linkages with Tokyo.

The sharpest words have come from Peter Navarro, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing to Trump, who has openly accused India of siding with Russia during the Ukraine war. Navarro has repeatedly claimed that India is backing Moscow’s war machine, and in a highly controversial remark, he even labeled the Russia-Ukraine conflict as “Modi’s war.” His rhetoric went further when he tried to justify the 50% tariff shock on Indian exports by publishing a photo of Modi in saffron, implying that India’s policies are guided by sectarian politics. Such tactics not only lack economic depth but also risk damaging the diplomatic space between the two nations. For India, the message is clear: it has no obligation to become a proxy for someone else’s agenda. Instead, New Delhi is drawing up its own Asia-first economic framework, with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) — the world’s largest trading bloc — at the center of long-term strategy. Rejoining RCEP remains an option if future circumstances become favorable.

Japan: Building Substance Over Symbolism

During his Japan visit, Modi has made it clear that the focus is not on optics but on real outcomes. The goals are straightforward: de-risking global supply chains, ensuring steady inflows of long-term capital, and securing advanced manufacturing for India. Key areas of cooperation include semiconductors, essential minerals, high-speed rail, and defense industrial collaboration. Over the years, Japan has already been steadily investing in India’s ports, freight corridors, and urban transit systems, and now the partnership is expanding to cover next-generation technologies. Importantly, Tokyo is also the only major partner that consistently supports India in its challenges with China.

Modi’s message in Tokyo was direct when he declared, “Make in India, Make for the World.” This was not just a slogan but a genuine market invitation, backed by India’s strong demographics, rising domestic demand, and recent policy reforms. Japan today acts as an industrial counterweight for India, supporting the QUAD’s economic framework and insulating India from the tariff pressures imposed by the United States.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs has also emphasized that India’s growth trajectory depends on embracing East Asia’s strategic geography and reconsidering its position in RCEP. With stronger Japanese FDI and co-production, India can minimize the negative impact of Washington’s harsh tariff regime, especially in industries where American companies are reluctant to share technology. In fact, every step India takes toward strengthening Indo-Japan production networks automatically increases New Delhi’s bargaining power in any future RCEP discussions.

China: Strategic Engagement Without Compromise

Modi’s visit to China carries a practical message: India is not surrendering but compartmentalizing. The engagement is designed to secure trade opportunities, attract investments, and expand market access while firmly maintaining a tough stance on the border and national security. The scale of Asian demand is simply too big to ignore, which explains the deliberate choreography — beginning with Beijing and then building momentum with Tokyo.

Washington, however, appears uneasy with this balance. Policymakers there would prefer India to remain permanently aligned against China. But that is not India’s approach, nor has it ever been. New Delhi prefers bilateral partnerships for trade, relies on SCO and BRICS for hedging, and uses issue-based coalitions like the QUAD for security needs. In the short term, optics may favor China as Xi Jinping hosts both Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi, projecting an image of a non-Western center of influence.

Why Washington Misreads and Navarro Gets It Wrong

The most aggressive words have come once again from Navarro, who has returned to the limelight with blunt and provocative claims. With the subtlety of a sledgehammer, he has defended the 50% tariffs on Indian exports, called the Ukraine conflict “Modi’s war” during interviews and posts on X, and accused India of running a “laundromat” for Russian oil by refining it and reselling it to global markets. To top it off, he concluded his thread by posting an image of Modi in saffron, an unmistakable attempt to suggest that India’s economic decisions are motivated more by sectarian nationalism than by pragmatic statecraft. This approach is not policy analysis but crass, reductionist politics disguised as strategy.

Exposing Navarro’s Missteps

1. Energy Security is not Warmongering – After 2022, India increased its imports of Russian crude oil to ensure price stability and protect consumers from inflation. This was a decision motivated by consumer welfare and the reliability of India’s power grid, not by geopolitical allegiance. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the G7 countries imposed a $60-per-barrel price cap to restrict Moscow’s revenues but still ensure oil supply to the global market. Even U.S. officials admitted that India’s ability to buy discounted cargoes was an essential part of this process.

2. Tariff Blackmail Weakens Alliances – Slapping a 50% tariff and mocking India on TV or social media may satisfy a domestic audience in the U.S., but it weakens Washington’s global standing. It pushes India to double down on partnerships with Asia, strengthens Indo-Japan cooperation, and increases the appeal of an RCEP-plus framework.

3. The Saffron Image is a Dog Whistle – Ending a policy rant with a saffron-clad photo of Modi is not serious analysis but a political signal. It portrays India’s sovereign economic choices as sectarian, which is insulting for a nation the U.S. claims to respect as a partner. Unsurprisingly, this move has triggered strong reactions across India’s political spectrum.

In conclusion, Navarro’s strategy is both economically flawed and politically inflammatory. Instead of working with India on realistic issues such as price ceilings, rules of origin, or integrated energy management, his approach seems designed to penalize India. That short-sightedness risks undermining U.S.-India relations at a time when constructive engagement is more urgently needed than ever.

RCEP: Asia’s Trade Power Engine

At the center of India’s current economic roadmap lies the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This mega trade bloc unites 15 Asia-Pacific economies led by ASEAN, with key members such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and China. Collectively, these economies represent nearly one-third of the world’s GDP, making RCEP one of the most powerful engines of trade and growth in the global system.

Back in 2019, India chose to walk away from the agreement. At the time, New Delhi cited genuine and pressing concerns. There were fears of Chinese dumping, violations of rules-of-origin, and a lack of proper access for India’s services sector. These were not minor objections but deeply rooted anxieties that India’s small manufacturers, farmers, and dairy sector could be overrun by an unchecked flood of cheap imports.

However, the world has not stood still. The RCEP formally came into effect in 2022, and since then, its tariff reductions and flexible cumulation processes have already begun transforming supply chains across Asia. Today, with the United States slapping fresh tariffs on Indian exports, policymakers in Delhi are openly re-evaluating whether a guarded and conditional re-entry into RCEP might serve the country’s exporters better than complete exclusion.

It is worth recalling India’s official position from 2019. The government had argued that low-cost imports, particularly from China, would overwhelm domestic industries, dealing heavy blows to sensitive sectors like dairy and agriculture. The absence of effective safeguards left India no choice but to withdraw, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi remained firm on that stand. This decision was widely seen as a protection for farmers, small businesses, and the dairy sector that form the backbone of India’s rural economy.

Meanwhile, Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN members have been steadily benefiting from RCEP. They are making full use of tariff preferences and cumulation to strengthen their internal trade flows. As they deepen these connections, India faces the growing risk of trade diversion, where opportunities bypass New Delhi simply because it is outside the pact.

Yet, re-entry into RCEP need not mean a wholesale surrender. It could take the form of conditional integration, with carefully designed safeguards. India could insist on snapback protections for sensitive sectors like agriculture and dairy, so that if imports threaten local industries, duties could quickly be restored. At the same time, New Delhi could demand strict rules-of-origin to prevent Chinese goods from sneaking in via third countries.

In the current climate, where Washington’s tariff measures threaten to undercut India’s export momentum, such a strategy provides a dual benefit. It ensures that rural India remains protected while also allowing Indian industries greater access to lucrative Asian markets. In other words, India can defend its sovereignty, resist outside pressure, and still strengthen its position in global supply chains.

When executed wisely, RCEP is not a capitulation. It is a strategic instrument that allows India to expand its economic scale, hedge against external risks, and position itself as a leading player in Asia—whether or not the United States chooses to cooperate.

Why Washington is Alarmed

Stripped of noise, three clear reasons explain Washington’s heated reaction toward India’s current choices.

1. Loss of Trade Leverage – If India builds stronger supply chains with Japan or cautiously considers rejoining RCEP, the United States loses its main bargaining chip: tariffs. Without this leverage, Washington finds it harder to extract concessions, which explains the loud pressure tactics and exaggerated anger about India’s oil purchases.

2. Narrative Control – Branding the Ukraine crisis as “Modi’s war” is not just rhetoric; it is an attempt to rewrite the story. By shifting the responsibility for a European conflict onto India, critics try to blame an Asian democracy that has simply practiced energy pragmatism within the very sanctions framework that the West itself created.

3. Fear of a New Asian Order – With Xi Jinping hosting both Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi, and as Delhi and Tokyo strengthen their industrial ties, a new non-Western geopolitical triangle seems to be forming. This represents an Asia-centric order where Washington may no longer be at the center. For the United States, that is unsettling.

Against this backdrop, tariffs and insults are poor diplomatic tools. They do little to shape outcomes in a region that is already rebalancing toward greater self-reliance.

Conclusion: India’s Assertive Economic Path

Prime Minister Modi’s twin visits—one to China’s vast markets and another to Tokyo’s influential boardrooms—have sent a powerful signal. India is pursuing its own roadmap for economic growth and national security with confidence and clarity. In this vision, RCEP is not a trap but a platform that India can shape to serve its producers and consumers.

The United States now faces a choice. It can either accept India’s growing independence and work with it constructively, or it can lash out through angry television debates and provocative social media threads. Peter Navarro has already chosen the latter, filling the conversation with saffron-themed satire and catchphrases that collapse under scrutiny.

India does not need to mirror that approach. Its best response is to keep strengthening “Make in India”, expand trade within Asia, and deal with America on terms of equality. Ultimately, it is this assertive independence—and India’s refusal to bow to pressure—that explains why some voices in Washington are, as many observers put it, simply “going mad.”