India’s Strategic Autonomy and What it Means For U.S. Businesses

Introduction

The India risk that matters most to companies has evolved over the past two decades. The journey can be encapsulated as being one from a market that was often viewed as having complex and challenging rules for doing business and limited enforcement to one that, in several spheres, has a worldclass digital public infrastructure, a primary focus on ease of doing business, and aggressive enforcement.

Enforcement of Indian law in letter and spirit is a committed position of the Government of India with no concessions given based on the attractiveness of a business or foreign investment. This is reflected not just in typical enforcement themes, but also when it comes to matters of local data storage, accounting standards, or participation in Indian capital markets. Here we see alignment with India’s external facing posture of strategic autonomy. Hence, we have two central themes — diplomatic efforts on “India first” and the regulatory backing of this mandate.

The practical translation is that Indian regulators are hypersensitive towards breaches of Indian law (especially by foreign companies), pursue cases aggressively, work independently, and, on matters involving India, wish to be the first and principal port of call.

Strategic Autonomy

India is one of the oldest and clearest examples of a non-aligned market, though it has only more recently moved to convert that leverage into tangible outcomes. Non-alignment for India is not a passive hedge; rather, it is a deliberate strategy of maintaining freedom of options across all available forums. The strategy has only been emboldened by its growing economy, geopolitical stature, and recent global events.¹

Outlook on Foreign Investment:

Welcoming foreign capital and creating an equitable environment for foreign and Indian capital is a sentiment that is not just espoused by the Government of India, but it is also reflected in how Indian businesses and supply chains view the matter. In short, India is open for business and wants to share its opportunity with the world and preferred partners like the United States, but it expects foreign businesses to play by its rules.

On the Most Recent U.S. tariffs:

The tariffs imposed on India — specifically targeting its purchase of Russian crude oil — were eventually withdrawn. As of September 2026, India has managed to hold out for a preferential rate relative to competing economies.

India’s posture during the tariff dispute was not focused on managing the tariff levels themselves. Rather, India was content to allow exporters and counterparties to absorb the uncertainty while it improved its own buying terms globally.

The most likely near-term development is a narrow trade agreement between India and the United States — which currently remains paused on India’s insistence. The trigger to watch is whether India secures tariff rates below those from competing economies – a condition India has now made an express precondition for any agreement.²

India’s Enforcement Priorities and Response Shift

Indian law enforcement has made clear that they do not intend to play second in matters involving India. They do not wish to learn about India-facing conduct belatedly or merely through a request for assistance by their foreign counter parts. Criticism of India’s lack of cooperation in cross border matters is effectively one that boils down to reciprocity — i.e., “we treat you as you treat us.” Cooperation instruments thus have significant asymmetry between the written law and its implementation, depending on who is asking. More recently, we have seen Indian authorities declining to facilitate U.S. process while pursuing separate lines of inquiry of their own.

India does not run a parallel track to an American case in the way several other nations do. The consequence is that the older model of resolving matters globally and remediating in India later may produce challenging outcomes, and as per current trends, it would almost guarantee an aggressive Indian response.

The assumption most global companies need to revisit is that a global resolution with U.S. authorities absolves them of India exposure. Indian enforcement authorities give no formal credit for foreign resolutions, and no cross-border double-jeopardy remedy is available. In other words, a declination or DPA can instead prove to be counterproductive without strategic dialogue with Indian regulators, as it may very well act as basis for them to initiate their own action.

In terms of enforcement priorities, financial and cybercrimes remain center stage, with a particular focus towards corruption, fraud, money laundering, and pursuing those who default on banks.

Implications for U.S. Multinational Companies

Three key pieces of guidance:

• Conduct business in India with the same intent and deliberate governance as you would in the United States, and that will be the best risk mitigation.
• Compliance requires planning and investment.
• Indian enforcement is not a paper tiger; it must be factored in early when dealing with cross border cases.

For U.S. companies operating in or considering entry into India, the core message is as follows: India is open to partnership and offers an incredible economic opportunity. But it also expects full compliance with Indian laws, and those who cross the line should expect enforcement by India, in India — and not just deference to the enforcement of other jurisdictions.

---

References