Revisiting the India US Trade Standoff, A What-If Scenario under PM Modi’s Diplomacy with President Trump
Why in News?
India’s economic ties with the United States faced a significant jolt when former US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Indian goods, labeling India a “tariff king” and triggering an uneasy phase in bilateral trade relations. The event raised critical questions about India’s foreign policy strategy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, particularly in dealing with President Trump’s unpredictable and transactional diplomatic style. As discussions on trade, tariffs, and diplomatic recalibrations gain prominence again amid new global realignments, the situation demands a thorough retrospective analysis.
Introduction
The article “On Tariffs, A What-If Story” by Sanjaya Baru reflects on an intriguing counterfactual: Could Prime Minister Narendra Modi have handled President Trump differently? The piece revisits a specific moment in global diplomacy and trade when the US slapped a 25 percent tariff on Indian products, despite India being a low- and middle-income economy. The author presents a reflective analysis on how India’s handling of the situation, both diplomatically and publicly, could have influenced the course of US-India relations more positively.
The situation stemmed from a broader global economic development: the US signing a 15 percent tariff deal with the European Union and Japan. Surprisingly, while developed industrial economies were exempted, India found itself penalized alongside China. This move not only strained India-US economic relations but also highlighted critical gaps in India’s foreign policy response, particularly the lack of nuanced public diplomacy and bilateral trade engagement.
Key Issues
1. The Trade Shock: Trump’s Tariff Moves
In a move that stunned India, US President Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on Indian products. Till then, India had believed that discussions were ongoing and expected a brief reprieve. However, Trump’s tweet, declaring that “the war” had ended, misrepresented the actual situation and suggested that the trade battle had been won by the US.
India had long been balancing its foreign policy between strategic defense ties with the US and managing its complicated relationship with Pakistan. Since 1971, India had taken great pains to keep the US aligned with its defense and security concerns, despite the US historically placing India and Pakistan on equal diplomatic footing. Trump’s policy flip appeared to re-validate older US tendencies of equating both South Asian nations, especially when he made statements implying that Pakistan and the US would jointly develop missile reserves, leaving India out.
2. India’s Diplomatic Silence and Missed Opportunity
According to the article, one of the major issues was the Indian government’s hesitance to publicly acknowledge or thank the Trump administration for its role in the ceasefire with Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi, adhering to his domestic political strategy, avoided making the US appear central in India’s conflict resolution. This allowed Trump to project himself as the key negotiator, further frustrating India’s position.
The timing was critical. Hours after the ceasefire and Trump’s tweet, PM Modi didn’t issue any official statement giving credit to Trump, a contrast to Trump’s own self-promoting narrative. Neither did India’s External Affairs Ministry or Foreign Ministry counter or clarify Trump’s exaggerated claims. Instead, Modi focused on the domestic political advantage through “Operation Sindoor”—an electoral strategy leveraging the nationalistic sentiment after the Pulwama attack.
3. Could Modi Have Engaged Differently with Trump?
Baru argues that a smarter diplomatic strategy could have included calling or publicly acknowledging Trump’s role in ending hostilities with Pakistan. A more collaborative tone may have helped strengthen India-US ties further, particularly when Trump was known to favor personal praise and flattery.
India had a chance to subtly shape US narrative and remind Trump of shared strategic interests. Yet, by remaining aloof and neutral, India left Trump feeling unrecognized, prompting the US President to lash out on trade matters to regain control over the narrative. Baru suggests that inviting Trump to New Delhi in January or even showing visible diplomatic warmth might have changed the tone of future US-India relations.
4. Failure of Narrative Management
Trump’s actions—including unilaterally calling India the “tariff king” and revoking India’s preferential trade status—were driven largely by his frustration with India’s lack of acknowledgment of his role in international matters. In diplomacy, especially with leaders like Trump who thrive on vanity and personal validation, silence is often interpreted as disrespect.
Baru points out that after the ceasefire, if PM Modi had engaged Trump through diplomatic backchannels or even in public by thanking him, it could have softened Trump’s approach. Moreover, India’s leadership should have prepared to engage diplomatically rather than reactively, as happened when US tariffs were suddenly imposed.
Alternative Approaches
1. Strategic Personal Diplomacy
Baru contends that Modi could have leaned on his proven strength—personal diplomacy. He had done it with leaders like Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin and could have adopted a similar approach with Trump. A simple congratulatory call or joint press statement could have gone a long way in cementing India’s image as a strategic partner in Trump’s worldview.
2. Early Invitation or Bilateral Talks
Another approach might have been an early invitation to Trump to visit India or a strategic bilateral meeting in the months leading up to the tariff announcement. This would have shown goodwill and provided Trump with a diplomatic “win” in the form of optics and partnership, which often influenced his trade decisions.
3. Counter-Narrative Through the Media
Instead of letting Trump control the narrative, India could have used soft diplomacy—media briefings, strategic leaks, and think tank engagements in the US—to project India’s efforts and commitment to bilateral relations. This could have curbed Trump’s impulse to act against India based on perceived neglect.
Challenges and the Way Forward
Challenges:
-
Navigating Trump’s unpredictable behavior: Trump’s erratic decisions were often driven by perception rather than facts.
-
India’s balancing act with Pakistan: Publicly acknowledging Trump’s help in a ceasefire with Pakistan may have led to domestic criticism.
-
Electoral considerations: Modi was deeply invested in Operation Sindoor and leveraging nationalism for electoral gains.
-
Fear of appearing subordinate: The Indian establishment feared appearing dependent on the US to resolve regional issues.
Way Forward:
-
Adopt dynamic diplomacy: India needs to be more agile in responding to foreign policy surprises, especially with unpredictable world leaders.
-
Institutional capacity for strategic communications: India must develop capabilities to manage diplomatic narratives in real-time.
-
Reassessment of foreign policy priorities: India should critically evaluate its assumptions about how global powers perceive its neutrality and strategic value.
-
Parliamentary review of foreign policy: As Baru suggests, a serious review of India’s foreign policy doctrines is needed to reassess old strategies in a new global context.
Conclusion
The Trump-Modi diplomatic standoff over tariffs was not just about trade; it was about missed cues, mismanaged narratives, and an underestimation of personal diplomacy. India, in its pursuit of strategic autonomy and regional leadership, may have unintentionally alienated one of its most important global partners by failing to acknowledge or respond effectively to Trump’s overtures.
Could things have been different if Prime Minister Modi had taken a more appreciative and strategic approach toward President Trump? Possibly. Diplomatic history often hinges on small gestures and timely words. This episode serves as a cautionary tale on the importance of public diplomacy, especially in an age where leaders’ egos and social media posts can influence major policy decisions.
As India continues to engage with changing leaderships across the world, this reflective analysis offers valuable lessons. It reminds policymakers that in today’s volatile diplomatic climate, proactive and personalized engagement, coupled with strategic communication, remains key to navigating even the most powerful allies.
Five Questions and Answers
Q1. Why did the US impose tariffs on India despite ongoing trade talks?
A1. The US, under President Trump, imposed 25 percent tariffs on Indian products as part of a broader strategy to reduce trade deficits. Despite India’s expectation of reprieve, Trump moved forward, possibly due to his perception that India had not shown adequate diplomatic engagement or appreciation.
Q2. What could PM Modi have done differently according to Sanjaya Baru?
A2. Baru suggests that Modi could have publicly acknowledged Trump’s role in the ceasefire with Pakistan and engaged him diplomatically, potentially changing the trajectory of India-US trade relations.
Q3. Why was Trump frustrated with India during this period?
A3. Trump felt unrecognized and undervalued by the Indian government, especially after his efforts in resolving tensions with Pakistan were not acknowledged. This may have led to his aggressive stance on tariffs.
Q4. How did domestic politics influence India’s response to Trump?
A4. PM Modi was focused on electoral strategies like Operation Sindoor and avoided appearing to rely on foreign help, especially from the US, in matters related to Pakistan.
Q5. What lessons can India learn from this episode?
A5. India must improve its public diplomacy, especially with global leaders who respond to personal validation. Strategic communication, timely gestures, and narrative management are essential for sustaining beneficial international relationships.
