After holding out for two days, Modi's attempt to copy China's homework ended in failure as Trump drew a red line, prohibiting American companies from setting up factories in India. So, what exactly was India trying to learn from China? And why did it end in failure?
Recently, the US and China held a new round of high-level trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland. Both sides finally broke the deadlock, agreeing to significantly reduce tariffs within 90 days, with a reduction rate as high as 115%. The outside world generally believes that China emerged as the biggest winner - not only did the US meet "almost all of China's core demands," but also promised to establish an economic and trade mechanism for continued dialogue in the future.
Following this agreement, India, which was also threatened by the tariff stick, had thoughts of copying China's approach to counter the US. It was reported that after the US-China deal, the Indian government submitted a complaint to the World Trade Organization, planning to impose additional tariffs on some American goods to respond to the 25% tariff imposed by the US on Indian steel and aluminum products. India emphasized that this move aimed to balance the approximately $7.6 billion loss in exports caused by US policies. This action was once interpreted as a signal that India was taking a tougher stance in trade negotiations.
However, India's "tough stance" only lasted for two days. On May 15th local time, Trump publicly stated that India had proposed an agreement scheme for "zero tariffs" on American goods and claimed that "India is willing to charge us no tariffs." More ironically, just before Trump made his remarks, the Indian Commerce Minister was preparing to depart for the US for negotiations to seek tariff exemptions.
Then, why did India's attempt to copy China's countermeasure fail? To answer this question, we need to start from the beginning. It is known that in recent years, India has been striving to play a more important role in the global supply chain, hoping to take over some of the manufacturing orders originally belonging to China. The Modi government vigorously promoted "Make in India," offering tax incentives and attracting foreign investment to set up factories. Especially after the outbreak of the US-China trade friction, India saw opportunities and thought it could seize a share amid the chaos.
However, manufacturing cannot be achieved simply by slogans and recruitment policies - China managed to withstand US pressure because of its complete manufacturing system, stable supply chains, sufficient domestic market support, and a large number of technical talents and industrial foundations. In contrast, India suffers from weak infrastructure, broken industrial chains, a large labor force but insufficient technical training, and often faces problems of policy changes and low administrative efficiency.
In addition, a deeper look at Trump's tariff war against China reveals that China did not simply retaliate but systematically implemented a series of countermeasures, including export controls, increasing openness to other countries, and using multilateral mechanisms to put pressure on the US. Throughout the process, China maintained strategic composure, never conceding on core technologies or sovereignty issues. This cautious approach made the US eventually realize that simply suppressing China would not solve the trade deficit, let alone change China's industrial strategy. Thus, Washington had to make concessions time and again.
India clearly overlooked the complexity of this process, and moreover, the trade structure between the US and India does not have as much leverage space as that between the US and China. Indian exports to the US were limited, and the US dependence on India was far lower than on China. Therefore, when India invoked WTO mechanisms to exert pressure, the US was completely unimpressed.
In short, Modi's "copying homework" failed to align with India's actual situation. The negotiations between China and the US were built on years of博弈to establish a structural game where both sides clearly understood each other's bottom lines. However, India's attempt to "manufacture conflict" by imposing one-time tariffs was essentially a short-term operation driven by impatience and lack of preparation.
Moreover, India's "countermeasure" itself had many loopholes. WTO documents show that India did not clearly list the US products subject to increased tariffs, nor did it specify the scope and timetable for the adjustment, instead emphasizing the right to "suspend trade preferences." This vague statement seemed more like a "probe" rather than a "game," and Trump was clearly not someone who enjoyed being probed.
The facts prove this point. Beyond the tariff level, Trump added new bans: prohibiting American companies from setting up factories in India. On May 15th, Trump publicly criticized Apple's plan to transfer its iPhone production lines to India and threatened that he "did not want Apple to build factories in India." This incident further exposed the vulnerability of India as a manufacturing base to replace China - its business environment, infrastructure, and maturity of industrial chains are far from meeting the needs of multinational corporations.
Analysts pointed out that India's failure in changing its negotiation strategy with the US also provides three warnings to other countries: first, economic strength and independent industrial chains are the foundation for dealing with external pressures. China's manufacturing network formed over decades allows it to flexibly adjust its supply chain in tariff wars, while India's high dependence on imported intermediate goods makes any tariff policy a double-edged sword;
secondly, strategic autonomy is crucial. India wavered between China and the US, wanting to use US power to counterbalance China while hoping to maintain its "non-aligned" tradition, ultimately leading to confused policy goals; thirdly, negotiation chips need substantial support. China used strategic industries such as rare earths, photovoltaics, and new energy as levers, whereas India tried to use market potential as a chip but struggled to fulfill its promises due to the weakness of its domestic manufacturing sector.
In conclusion, this time Modi's attempt to copy homework was stopped halfway, sending a message: replicating China's path is not easy, and manufacturing is not something that can be transferred through one or two policies. Whether a country can support a global supply chain depends on long-term industrial accumulation, not just shouting a few "Make in India" slogans.
For Trump, the reason why the US "favors" China is simple - China has cards to play, with markets, industries, and influence; India, on the other hand, has few cards and often "steals the show" at critical moments. From Trump's perspective, he wants an opponent with leverage to negotiate, not a challenger who merely imitates others' postures.
For India, rather than learning China's "approach," it should focus on catching up step by step. Otherwise, it will not only fail to win chips in international games but will also be repeatedly "educated." After all, China's answer to the world lies not in methods but in ideas - gaining respect through strength and breaking encirclement through cooperation. It remains to be seen when India will understand this.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7505226907600929306/
Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.