At a critical juncture, India finds itself grappling with two seemingly disparate yet equally contentious issues – the historical shadow of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s reign and the looming threat of reciprocal tariffs from US president Donald Trump.While Hindutva groups in India remain fixated on reopening centuries-old wounds from Aurangzeb’s rule – particularly his taxation policies and alleged destruction of temples – the immediate economic repercussions of Trump’s tariffs may prove far more damaging.Aurangzeb’s imposition of jizya, a capitation or poll tax on non-Muslims, remains one of the most debated aspects of his reign. Historians like Audrey Truschke, in her book Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, note that the tax alienated many Hindus and contradicted the earlier Mughal principle of sulh-i kull (universal peace), established under Akbar.Some have spoken of a scathing letter penned by Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji to Aurangzeb disparaging the jizya on grounds that it went against the policy of Akbar to resolve issues peacefully. Other accounts have it that Rana Raj Singh of Mewar wrote this letter between 1650 and 1680.Though exemptions existed for the poor and unemployed, the tax’s burden fell unevenly, with Hindu merchants (baniyas) reportedly paying more. Yet, the full extent of its impact remains disputed among scholars.In contrast, Trump’s impending reciprocal tariffs – set to take effect on April 2 – threaten to inflict severe, measurable harm on countries across the world, including the Indian economy. Economists like Paul Krugman warn that these measures could disrupt global trade, hitting not just the US but also partner nations like Canada and Mexico, with whom the US has revised free trade agreement that were notched during Trump’s first term, but other countries like India with disproportionate force.A rupture in trade policyAurangzeb’s taxes marked a departure from his predecessors’ policies, just as Trump’s tariffs break from decades of US trade orthodoxy. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt and his trade strategist Cordell Hull laid the groundwork for the post-war global trade order –enshrining the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle in the 1948 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – the US has championed non-discriminatory trade. In fact, prior to establishing the GATT, the American trade negotiators called for reciprocal trade based on the MFN framework. That framework later led to rounds of trade negotiations under the aegis of the GATT culminating in the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995, based on the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. The US grudgingly accepted the rules created in the Final Act of the negotiation results, even though several studies suggested that it is the biggest beneficiary with the inclusion of an agreement on the trade-related aspects of intellectual properties, services, and several exemptions. Also read: India’s Tariff Sovereignty Under Threat: Is New Delhi Capitulating to US Pressure?Interestingly, the US waged a strenuous negotiating struggle for the MFN framework for conducting trade with none other than its closest partner, Britain. The non-discriminatory principle inscribed in Article 1 of the GATT did not come easily as British negotiators, led by Mynard Keynes, insisted on the continuation of Imperial Preferences. Those preferences allowed for granting special low tariff duties with empire trading partners in order to monopolise their raw materials and to ensure that the colonies took only British manufactured products. However, the US prevailed in this negotiating battle finally towards the end of 1947. Trump’s tariffs, however, upend this legacy. By demanding reciprocal duties, he echoes the British Empire’s Imperial Preferences which was essentially a system designed to favour colonial trade at the expense of fairness. His approach risks fracturing the very framework that has governed international commerce for nearly 80 years. It is, however, not clear yet when the reciprocal tariffs will be brought into effect. Indications are that there will be a grace period for countries affected by these tariffs to enter into negotiations, as part of a leverage tactic. If the affected-countries fail to impose the reciprocal tariffs after that period, then, they could be subjected to the retaliatory tariffs. Last week, Trump, a vituperative critic of socialism, issued two posts on his Truth Social website on March 26, saying that “LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA IS COMING, SOON,” in apparent reference to the reciprocal tariffs to be imposed on April 2. He also said: “FOR YEARS WE HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BOTH FRIEND AND FOE. BUT THOSE DAYS ARE OVER – AMERICA FIRST!!!”In the same tone, Trump also threatened Canada and the European Union, two major exporters of cars and auto parts to the US, that if they initiate retaliatory measures against American products, then, he will impose “large scale” tariffs. “If the European Union works with Canada in order to do economic harm to the USA, large scale Tariffs, far larger than currently planned, will be placed on them both in order to protect the best friend that each of those two countries has ever had!,” he wrote in the post.Earlier, Trump had delayed the hefty tariffs on Canada and Mexico, while doubling the 10% tariff against China. In addition, Trump had imposed a 25% tariff on all aluminium and steel products entering the US market. The US is increasingly becoming a “whirlpool of tariffs” with impositions on almost all items from Washington’s trading partners. The Economist criticised as “the cost of uncertainty” Trump’s latest auto tariffs as well as the upcoming reciprocal tariffs to be imposed on April 2. It wrote, “The liberation America needs is from the paralysing uncertainty brought about by Mr Trump’s chaotic approach.” Earlier, the London-based publication urged the affected countries to toughen up their stance against the tariffs imposed by Trump. Later, it changed its stance, suggesting that retaliatory measures would induce “more pain” and “carries a cost,” as retaliation might stoke further escalation from the US.The World Trade Organization’s leadership has remained silent on the allegedly unilateral tariffs imposed by the US. In fact, the WTO’s director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, apparently scared according to an insider in the trade body, has not made a substantive statement on the spate of tariffs imposed by the US on all members of the trade body till now. India’s weak bargaining positionDespite the high stakes, India’s response has been worryingly passive. Reports suggest the Modi government has already made concessions, lowering tariffs on American goods – from agricultural products like Bourbon whiskey to manufactured items – even before formal negotiations began.Unlike during the 1993-94 Uruguay Round, when then prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao sought bipartisan consensus, today’s talks lack transparency. Officials vaguely reference a “$500 billion trade target” but offer no concrete benchmarks. Meanwhile, critical questions linger:Are security guarantees or geopolitical considerations – such as the Khalistan issue or legal protections for the Indian business tycoon Adani – driving these concessions?Why is India not aligning with other major economies (China, Japan, and Korea, as well as the EU) in opposing Trump’s tariffs? The Cost of SilenceHistory shows that yielding to pressure rarely ends with a single compromise. As trading nations unite against protectionism, India risks isolation by staying silent. The long-term price of this acquiescence – for farmers, industries, and future generations – remains uncertain but potentially devastating.In India, there is rebellion against Aurangzeb’s rule. Worldwide, there is resistance to Trump’s trade wars. The question is: Will India join the fight, or will it pay the price for its hesitation?Ravi Kanth Devarakonda is a financial journalist based in Switzerland.
