New Delhi: Everything isn’t hunky-dory in India-US relations, no matter how many times we revisit those high voltage, pulsating images of Howdy Modi in Houston and Namaste Trump in Ahmedabad and how fondly and nostalgically we reimagine the warmth and bonhomie of those jadoo ki jhappis.
The current incumbent of the Oval Office isn’t sentimental about personal chemistry nor enamoured by commitment to democracy and rule of law and common vision of a free, open, peaceful, rule-based and rule-abiding multilateral system in a multipolar world. For him, it’s all business, that too in favour of the US. He seems to relish the spectacle of both foes and friends alike scrambling to sign agreements heavily weighted in favour of the US following his threats of imposition of high tariffs which he claims are bringing in billions of dollars in US coffers; that would balance trade and provide funds for MAGA. Those who aren’t falling in line will pay a heavy price with imposition of additional penal tariffs for importing Russian oil.
India, the world’s most populous country, the relations with which were once hailed by the American administration as “the most defining relationship of the 21st century” and the popularity of whose PM was envied by a US President who thought he would have to take his autographs in future, is intrigued at this sudden unfriendly turn in relations shaking the very edifice so assiduously built by successive governments in the US and India belonging to different parties over a quarter of a century. Many analysts including Fareed Zakaria believe this downturn and resulting rupture of trust would go down as the biggest strategic blunder of the Trump administration. According to John Bolton, former NSA, tariffs against India make no strategic sense. And Kanwal Sibal, former FS, asks: how do you make sense of nonsense?
Should India be surprised? In the Oval Office in February 2025 (Modi was one of the early invitees), sitting next to the Indian PM, Donald Trump said: India was a very difficult place to do business, they impose such high rate of duties; earlier he had called India the Tariff King. Notwithstanding long negotiations, a BTA didn’t materialise in his first term. Apparently, Modi didn’t agree to open up farming, dairy, fisheries and small enterprises sectors on which depend millions of Indians; allowing these sectors to be swamped with American products will have huge political repercussions. Similarly, import of soya beans, maize and genetically modified grains will be a red flag to agitating farmers.
Nonetheless, in the five rounds of negotiations, the trade representatives of the two countries had reportedly covered a lot of ground and a mutually acceptable draft initial trade agreement was ready for the President’s signatures. But instead of signing the deal, Trump intensified pressure on India by announcing an additional 25% penal duty if she continued importing Russian oil, bringing it to 50% on par with Brazil. Vice President Vance claimed on a TV show that this was, in fact, to punish Russia.
The White House trade adviser, Peter Navarro’s description of India as a laundrette for Russian oil has infuriated India. EAM Jaishankar has said that the US encouraged India’s purchase of Russian oil as it helped stabilise international prices. He also pointed out that China was the largest importer of the Russian oil and several European countries continued purchasing Russian gas in spite of the US sanctions. Then came the cul-de-sac: the US itself has been buying uranium, fertilisers and some other products from Russia, he added.
At the Economic Times World Leaders Conference on 23 August, Jaishankar bluntly threw a gauntlet: “If you have a problem buying oil from India, oil or refined products, don’t buy it… nobody forced you to buy it.” Most US watchers suspect the current spat isn’t about trade imbalance; China has six times bigger trade surplus but isn’t subjected to similar tongue lashing; obviously, it has the leverage of rare earth metals and industrial magnets.
Is it something to do with hurting the ego of a President who thinks he is the greatest peace maker and is obsessive about winning a Nobel Peace Prize? He rushed to announce, before anyone in India could, that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. He gleefully claimed before the GCC Council in Riyadh (May 14) that his administration brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan by using leverage of trade. Evidently, Trump erred in underestimating India’s national pride and resolve. India won’t succumb to his bullying and agree to the conditions which are against her national interests.
The Pahalgam terrorist attack warranted a befitting response. Sindoor was an inspiring and unifying military success that destroyed carefully selected terrorists’ centres and Pakistan air force bases all over Punjab. All the political parties including the Congress stood behind the government. With this backdrop, defying India’s decades-long declared position not to accept third-party mediation, Trump’s rushed claim to have brokered a ceasefire didn’t go down well with the Modi government. It was also perceived as an insult to the Indian Armed Forces; the credit of their spectacular operations was being usurped by someone else.
For years, Pakistan is known as the epicentre of international terror; UN-listed terrorists have been running their centres and training camps there. Osama bin Laden was eventually found and killed in Abbottabad. With this chequered history, Trump’s announcement that he loved Pakistan amounted to adding salt to injury. In Pakistan, the army controls the levers of power and calls the shots; export of terrorism to India has been an integral part of their state policy. Hosting the Pakistani Army Chief Gen Munir to lunch at the White House so soon after the Pahalgam attack was very insensitive to India.
India-US relations have been transformed beyond recognition in the last 25 years; the US is India’s largest trading partner, largest investor and largest source of advanced technologies. They are global strategic partners and major defence partners and working together in Indo-Pacific, Quad, I2U2, IMEC and the global biofuel alliance. Such multidimensional and pivotal relationships can’t be allowed to flounder.
Both the Indian PM and the EAM have formally stated on the floor of the House that there was no third-party mediation for the ceasefire, and trade never figured in conversation in those tension-filled days. Jaishankar has reiterated three red lines: no compromise on farmers’ and small enterprises; no stopping of Russian oil import; and no third-party mediation in India-Pak relations.
The newly nominated ambassador designate, Sergio Gor, whom President Trump called a great friend, and someone whom he could fully trust to deliver his agenda, has his task cut out. The 38-year-old immigrant from Uzbekistan who has risen to dizzying heights in a short time, will be well advised to keep India’s red lines in mind. The advice of the India-US Business Council head, Atul Keshap, that bilateral issues should be discussed privately will also serve him well.
Most of all, he must show respect to India, Indian leaders and the Indian people and show sensitivity to their feelings and must desist from hyphenating India and Pakistan in his role as the Special Envoy for South and Central Asian affairs. If he gets suitably briefed about India and what it represents today and comes with a clear objective to repair the relationship and expand and deepen it further, with the trust and confidence of President Trump, he can be another Kenneth Galbraith from the Kennedy era.
Surendra Kumar is a former ambassador of India.
