From Typewriters to Tariffs: Gandhi’s Lesson for 2025

Introduction

Economic sovereignty is rarely lost in a single moment—it slips away quietly, often disguised as reform or strategic partnership. Nearly a century apart, two very different moments reveal the same truth: self-reliance is a conscious choice, and neglecting it carries a heavy price. In 1926, Mahatma Gandhi reflected on King George’s anger at the use of American typewriters in England, turning the anecdote into a lesson on economic patriotism via khadi¹. In 2025, we confront a similar crossroads amid steep U.S. tariffs—a shock that could instead spark renewed national autonomy.

Gandhi’s Lesson: More Than a Typewriter

In Navjivan (28 February 1926), Gandhi described how King George, visiting an industrial exhibition, expressed dismay seeing a government clerk using an American typewriter rather than one of British make¹. The King argued that even if a foreign product was superior, domestic use mattered for protecting employment and industry. Gandhi drew the parallel to India urging khadi over mill-made cloth—an act of both economic and moral significance.

This highlights that economic choices are inherently political—each imported good touches livelihoods and national integrity.

From Typewriters to Tariffs: The 2025 Parallel

Donald Trump’s “reckless tariff” may appear disruptive, but through Gandhi’s lens, it could also serve as a jolt toward self-awareness. Dr. Deepesssh Divaakaran argues that India’s 1991 liberalisation—framed as reform—was, in effect, a loss of sovereignty². Under IMF conditions, appointments like Manmohan Singh (former IMF Executive Director) and Montek Ahluwalia (ex–World Bank economist) embedded Western interests, framing India for dependency on global finance². The resultant opening of markets eroded public sectors, impoverished MSMEs, and sidelined agriculture.

Despite the narrative of a “strategic ally,” the U.S. has repeatedly acted in its own interest: supporting Pakistan in 1971, imposing sanctions in 1998, blocking advanced technology transfers, blacklisting critical Indian institutions, and now imposing punitive tariffs². The myth of shared values has collapsed; in reality, India has been useful—not equal.

Analytical Insight: Why the Comparison Falls Short

An important counterpoint arises: comparing Trump’s stance to King George’s is problematic. King George supported a viable British manufacturing base, offering tangible, quality products that could be promoted. Conversely, U.S. manufacturing has been hollowed out over decades through outsourcing, rendering “Buy American” largely rhetorical without major structural revival.

Trump cannot point to a robust domestic substitute—his policy ignores that supplying domestic demand requires more than intention; it demands cultural, economic, and labor transformation. Gandhi’s vision rested on grassroots mobilization, not an elite reframing of policy. Thus, equating Trump with King George—and by extension placing him near Gandhi in moral authority—is a flawed comparison. It underscores that self-reliance must be rooted in industrial and cultural realities, not political theater.

The Opportunity Within the Shock

Like the King’s rebuke, tariffs can prompt serious reflection. Rather than begging for concession, India can strengthen its manufacturing, tech sectors, and MSMEs. This requires more than just policy—it demands cultural reorientation, perhaps even behavioral nudges of consumer preference akin to Gandhi’s khadi advocacy.

Unintended though they may be, Trump’s tariffs offer a chance to pursue “Swarajya 2.0”—a comprehensive independence that is strategic, economic, digital, and psychological².

Conclusion

A century ago, Gandhi used the typewriter anecdote to teach self-respect and economic wisdom. Today, U.S. tariffs pose a similar challenge: will we recoil in fear or reclaim autonomy over what we make, use, and value? The choice is ours; the cost of inaction is not just economic, but a quiet surrender of sovereignty.

The fan above Indo-U.S. relations—once spinning the illusion of partnership—has stopped working². It’s time to build our own air.

Ashram, August 9, 2025

Footnotes

1. M.K. Gandhi, Royal Displeasure, Navjivan, 28 February 1926, in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 30, pp. 56–57. Gandhi recounts King George’s reaction to the use of American typewriters in England and connects it to promoting khadi in India.
2. Dr. Deepesssh Divaakaran, 1947 gave us Freedom, 1991 quietly sold it back, LinkedIn profile and commentary (2025). The article critiques India’s liberalisation as forced dependency and advocates for holistic sovereignty, or “Swarajya 2.0.” (Profile accessed via LinkedIn, limited view.) From a Forwarded message.

Summary

The incident recounts King George’s displeasure upon seeing an American typewriter in use at an English industrial exhibition, despite England manufacturing its own typewriters. The King argued that local products should be used even if foreign ones are superior, as this supports domestic industry and employment. Gandhi draws a lesson from this for India, comparing it to the promotion of khadi. Just as replacing foreign typewriters could employ thousands in England, adopting khadi in India could provide livelihoods for millions of poor Indians. This requires only a change in taste and mindset, as khadi, though less refined than mill-made cloth, carries greater moral and economic value.

Summary

Dr. Deepesssh Divaakaran argues that while 1947 brought India political freedom, the 1991 economic reforms effectively surrendered it to Western interests, particularly the United States, under IMF-imposed conditions. He contends that appointing Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia—both with strong IMF/World Bank ties—was part of reprogramming India’s economy toward dependency. Liberalisation opened markets, weakened public sectors, hurt MSMEs, and neglected agriculture. The U.S., despite being called a “strategic partner,” has historically undermined India—backing Pakistan, imposing sanctions, blocking technology, and interfering in domestic policy. Trump’s recent trade restrictions, Divaakaran says, exposed the myth of Indo–U.S. equality, showing India was only ever “useful.” He calls for “Swarajya 2.0”—a renewed, unapologetic sovereignty that is strategic, economic, digital, and psychological—ending foreign dependence and reclaiming self-reliance.