The announcement by US President Donald Trump of a steep 50 per cent tariff on Indian goods has sent ripples across the Indian economy, but the reverberations are being felt beyond the realm of trade and into the streets, where anger has taken the shape of a surging swadeshi sentiment. Trump’s justification—that India continues to purchase and resell Russian oil for profit despite the war in Ukraine—was followed by sharp words on social media and punitive action that doubled the earlier tariff of 25 per cent. For many in India, this has been perceived less as an economic adjustment and more as a political humiliation. Calls to boycott American brands—Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, KFC and Subway—are multiplying, with voices like Yoga guru Ramdev demanding that “not a single Indian” buy from these multinationals. What began as a protectionist decision in Washington has morphed into a rallying cry for Indian consumers to turn away from foreign goods. With India’s vast market of 1.5 billion people, the implications for American corporations are immense. If such calls translate into action, they could inflict serious economic pain on some of the most recognisable global brands, whose revenues and investments in India have grown steadily in recent years.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has chosen this moment to reinforce his long-standing call for “vocal for local,” reminding citizens of the economic power inherent in their choices. Drawing on the swadeshi tradition that once galvanised the freedom movement, he urged Indians to support products made “by the sweat of the people of India.” The Prime Minister, without naming Trump directly, pointed to the rise of economic nationalism worldwide, where countries privilege their own survival over the interests of others. His words strike a chord with a population that has grown increasingly conscious of the country’s aspiration to become the world’s third-largest economy. At the same time, Washington shows no signs of retreat. Trump insists that India’s oil policy undermines global stability and claims the penalties are necessary. For New Delhi, the tariffs are “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,” and the government has pledged to safeguard national interests. The episode has created a political space where calls for economic self-reliance merge seamlessly with indignation against external pressure. Political voices such as AAP MP Ashok Kumar Mittal have gone as far as to recall the Swadeshi Movement of 1905, suggesting that if 146 crore Indians today embraced that spirit, it would hit the US harder than India itself.
At the heart of this tussle lies a deeper clash between geopolitics and market forces. American firms, from fast food chains to beverage giants, have built formidable stakes in India’s consumer economy. McDonald’s operator Westlife Foodworld reported ₹2,390 crore in revenues last fiscal year, while PepsiCo India remains among the company’s top 15 global markets, having invested thousands of crores in recent years. Such entrenched positions reveal why the threat of boycott cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric; even a modest consumer withdrawal could dent earnings and alter brand perception. Yet this is not merely a trade skirmish. It represents a collision of oil politics, nationalist economic agendas and shifting alliances in a volatile world order. For India, the dilemma is stark: how to maintain strategic independence in energy policy without inviting punitive costs that stoke domestic unrest. For American firms, the risk is being caught as collateral damage in an escalating geopolitical game. This brewing standoff underscores the fragility of global economic ties in an era where strategic rivalries dictate commercial outcomes. What unfolds next—retaliatory tariffs, a sustained boycott movement, or eventual dialogue—will not only test India’s resilience but also reshape the contours of its relationship with the United States at a time when the world is increasingly fractured.