The Age of Humiliation, How Trump Treats Allies and What India’s Response Must Be
There is a line often painted on the backs of Indian highway trucks, a piece of folk philosophy that, when translated, loses much of its rustic flavour but none of its cynical truth: “Aisa koi saga nahin, jisko humnein thaga nahin.” Roughly, it means there is no relative or close one whom I have not swindled. Substitute “relative” with “ally” or “partner,” and “swindled” with “humiliated,” and you have a working definition of the foreign policy of the second Trump administration. The recent sinking of the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena by the US Navy is just the latest headline in a story that is less about military strategy and more about a distinct, brutal, and deeply personal diplomatic style. Donald Trump has ushered in what can only be called the age of humiliation, and its primary targets are not his adversaries, but America’s closest friends. For India, a nation that has spent the last decade celebrating its rising global stature, this age presents a profound challenge. The answer, as one analyst suggests, lies not in matching Trump’s bluster, but in embracing a different “H” word: humility.
Trump’s method is consistent and unmistakable. He pushes around America’s friends rudely and publicly, secure in the knowledge that their traditional dependencies on the United States—for security, for trade, for diplomatic cover—leave them with no real capacity to fight back. European leaders, from Keir Starmer to Emmanuel Macron, have learned this lesson. Canada, Ukraine, South Africa, France, and even historically neutral Switzerland have all felt the sting of his public rebukes. When Spain demurred on allowing the use of its bases for the war on Iran, Trump’s response was not diplomatic negotiation, but a curt dismissal: the US simply wouldn’t ask. With Denmark and Norway, the insults are tied to his bizarre obsession with acquiring Greenland and his perceived entitlement to a Nobel Peace Prize. With South Africa, he bought wholesale into a myth of “white genocide” peddled by his acolyte Elon Musk. His treatment of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he claims to “love,” hasn’t stopped him from demanding Kyiv’s help against Iranian drone swarms. The pattern is clear: dependency invites contempt. Those who rely on the American security umbrella are treated not as partners, but as vassals who must endure their humiliation stoically.
For India, this new age of humiliation presents a uniquely complex problem. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has, so far, navigated the Trumpian waters with a strategy of studied silence. When Trump singled out India for “punitive” tariffs, New Delhi did not retaliate with public outrage. When Trump made a characteristically muddled and open-ended remark about not wanting to “destroy” Modi’s political career—a comment made in a context that could be interpreted in a dozen different ways—India’s officialdom held its tongue. This maun vrat (vow of silence) is a deliberate strategy. It recognizes that engaging in a public spat with a US president who thrives on conflict is a losing game. It also, not incidentally, denies domestic political opponents an easy rallying cry. One can only imagine how a BJP government would have reacted if a US president had similarly targeted a Congress-led administration. The Congress party, for its part, has largely been content with social media posts, too languid to organize even a modest protest against what some might call “national humiliation.”
But the strategy of silence, while wise in the short term, cannot be the entirety of India’s response. The pressure will only mount. Trump’s “special affections,” as the analysis notes, are reserved exclusively for his friends. The time to get really worried is when he calls you “my very good friend,” for that is when he is sharpening the knife. He is the schoolyard bully who must constantly remind his gang that he is the boss. For a proud nation like India, with a popular leader and a growing capacity for self-defence, the calculus is different from that of a dependent European power. The question is not if, but when and how, India must pivot from silent endurance to a more assertive, yet still wise, posture.
The first and most visible element of this wise posture has been the active search for other friends. India’s effusively warm response to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is a prime example. Canada, as America’s closest neighbour and ally, has been a prime recipient of Trump’s most vicious insults. By deepening ties with Ottawa, India is not just building a bilateral relationship; it is sending a signal. It is demonstrating that in the age of humiliation, middle powers must seek solace in the bosom of one another. Trump’s bullying is, paradoxically, creating new openings for coalitions of the bullied.
The second, and far more complex, element is the strategic realignment in West Asia. India’s response to the escalating US-Iran war, and specifically to Operation Sindoor, has raised eyebrows. There is no official explanation for why Prime Minister Modi chose to visit Israel when it was not his turn, but his counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu’s, and at a time when a wider war was clearly brewing. The only educated guess is that Operation Sindoor served as a brutal wake-up call, starkly exposing India’s military vulnerabilities. The two successive PSLV launch failures, the loss of invaluable military-capable satellites, and the glaring inadequacy of India’s own Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) resources, stand-off weapons, drones, sensors, and air defence systems, all point to an urgent need for technological and military deepening. In West Asia, it is now evident that India has picked a side: the Israel-UAE combine. This also puts the sudden and mysterious visit of UAE ruler Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) to India in a new, more strategic perspective.
The third wise, if uncomfortable, element is the need for strategic humility on the economic front, particularly with China. In an age of global insecurity, with limited leverage and significant vulnerabilities, India must carefully calculate how many “pargas”—a colloquial term for punches or losses—it can absorb. Yielding some space on trade to China may be a bitter pill, but it is a pragmatic recognition of current economic realities.
The fourth, and perhaps most difficult, element is domestic. The Modi government’s relationship with the Opposition, particularly the Congress party, is at an all-time low. Yet, there is a healthy tradition in India’s foreign policy history of taking the Opposition into confidence on matters of national security. Treating the Opposition as “vermin” and its leader as a “clown” forecloses this option. As Trump’s insults mount, the domestic political pressure will grow. The Opposition will inevitably seek to weaponize any perceived slight as “national humiliation,” shrinking the government’s room for manoeuvre. Rebuilding a bipartisan national consensus on foreign policy, or at least establishing channels of communication, is not a favour to the Opposition; it is a strategic imperative that widens India’s options.
Ultimately, the age of humiliation demands a fundamental re-evaluation of India’s self-image. Over the past decade, India has drunk deeply of its own Kool-Aid, celebrating its rise as an indispensable global power. The rhetoric has been heady, the self-congratulation relentless. Trump, in his own brutal way, has hosed that down with chilled Potomac water. The global stature we presumed we had is, in his eyes, notional. The reality is that we are still a nation with deep economic vulnerabilities, significant military gaps, and a fragmented domestic polity.
The time has come to take a deep breath, suspend the self-congratulation, and get down to the hard work of building up the economy, strengthening defence capabilities, preserving social cohesion, and recalibrating domestic politics. Navigating the remaining three years of the Trump presidency will require the other “H” word, one that has been deep-frozen over these heady 11 years: humility. Not the humility of servitude, but the strategic humility of a nation that knows its own weaknesses as well as its strengths, that understands that true strategic autonomy is built not on rhetoric, but on resilient institutions, a strong economy, and a united polity. Some humility at home is where we must begin to deal with Trump’s global age of humiliation.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What is the central characteristic of President Trump’s foreign policy towards allies, according to the article?
A1: The article argues that Trump’s policy is defined by a “method” of publicly and rudely pushing around America’s friends. He targets those who are dependent on the US, knowing they cannot afford to fight back. This has created an “age of humiliation” where traditional allies, from Europe to Canada, are subjected to public insults and contempt.
Q2: How has Prime Minister Modi’s government initially responded to Trump’s provocations, such as “punitive” tariffs?
A2: The government’s initial response has been a strategy of studied silence, or maun vrat. By not retaliating with public outrage, they avoid feeding Trump’s love for conflict and deny domestic political opponents an easy rallying cry. This is seen as a wise, short-term strategy, but one that cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Q3: What is the strategic significance of India’s warm response to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney?
A3: The response to Carney is part of India’s active search for other friends in a world where the US is an unreliable partner. Canada, as a prime victim of Trump’s “1st state” insults, is a natural partner. This approach demonstrates that middle powers must seek solace and build stronger ties among themselves to counterbalance the age of humiliation.
Q4: According to the article, what was a major “wake-up call” that influenced India’s strategic realignment towards Israel and the UAE?
A4: The article suggests that “Operation Sindoor” served as a brutal wake-up call, starkly exposing India’s military vulnerabilities. The failures of PSLV launches, loss of satellites, and inadequacies in ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), stand-off weapons, and air defence highlighted the urgent need to deepen military ties with technologically advanced partners like Israel and the UAE.
Q5: What is the “other H word” the article proposes as the necessary response to Trump’s “age of humiliation,” and what does it entail?
A5: The “other H word” is humility. This is not servitude, but a strategic humility that requires India to re-evaluate its self-image, suspend self-congratulation, and focus on the hard work of building up its economy, strengthening its defence, preserving social cohesion, and rebuilding bipartisan national unity. It is about acknowledging vulnerabilities to better navigate a hostile global environment.
