It’s really difficult to describe the recently concluded compact between the two democracies with a suitable acronym although in practical ways the meeting between Donald Trump and Narendra Modi marked a new chapter in their relationship. So, the residue of the mega Howdy Modi show in 2019 could only be counted as a nostalgic factor while Trump 2.0 finds America’s external affairs in a state of turbulence. It is like a prestige fight for Trump to appear in a new avatar in which his rhetoric to take Gaza, Panama Canal and Greenland has already evoked strong reactions. In the circumstances, the Indian quandary has also accentuated because

i) Trump appears to be excessively transactional,

Advertisement

ii) the US has started scrutinizing its trade imbalances with different countries and

iii) the US has already initiated steps to deport illegal Indians back to India, which will mount pressure on the MEA. On the other hand, morally speaking India has no locus standi to protest against such Trumpian moves because Modi’s government too had securitized the Rohingya issue and barred refugees from seeking security in India under the principle of non-refoulement. So, if Trump’s decision is found to be precipitously harsh, India’s stand on the refugee issue can’t be exonerated from the charge of being equally discriminatory and contradictory.

However, for a middle power like India what is more important to understand is the direction of the transition of international politics. Here we find the emergence of new features that cannot be simply regarded as post-Cold War unipolarity but a uni-multipolar world where multiple great powers would vie for power to rejig the balance of power regionally but which ultimately will act as second fiddle to the sole superpower. So, it is simultaneously India’s predicament as well as an opportunity to strike a chord with the US-favoured world order which allows her space to dominate in South Asia while getting pressured and the Americans on the economic and trade fronts since India due to its sheer size offers an extensive market for the American business interests.

By now it is clear that Trump’s second term would be fraught with major disruptions that might cause seismic shifts within the post-World War II liberal democratic spirit or the credo of the open market. However, this American exceptionalism should not be construed to ignore competitive capitalist growth because Trump’s new entourage includes business magnets like Elon Musk of Tesla, while Vice President J D Vance’s recent remarks at the Munich Security Conference that ignored the expected agenda of ending the Ukraine conflict were also startling.

Thus, signals we get from unexpected distractions create a kind of smokescreen underneath which the President’s unsettling experiments with a new set of regulations, aid cuts, conservative protectionism with coercive tariffs and anti-foreigner discrimination, amount to a deep liberal paradox because more trade and globalization of communication are bound to give rise to a flow in terms of migration too. Hence whatever the aggressive posture might be, Trump’s policies can’t be nativist although it requires a regime of immigration reform because unauthorised migration is a liability altogether different from guest workers to whom one needs to be respectful. But the problem arises from the contradiction when one prioritises the need to be economically open and leverage through the transportation revolution but politically behaves xenophobically. Thus, India’s large market with its sizeable middle-class population has been drawing Uncle Sam to strike deals with New Delhi while it tightens its visa policy for Indian workers.

So, however we might wish to use window dressing with the rhetoric of human rights or mutual trust or commitment to values of freedom, what brought both sides together was a pragmatic motive spanning across trade, defense and technology to lay the foundation of the comprehensive partnership. Undoubtedly there is a high probability that during Trump2.0, the US would be in the driver’s seat while New Delhi’s dealings with Washington would involve difficult bargaining. Nevertheless, both sides must be prescient about the benefits of cooperation on critical and emerging technologies. This spirit was exhibited in the recent meetings that affirmed commitment to enhancing supply chain resilience. Here a point to be noted is that both India and the US want to reduce their dependence on the Chinese network of commodity supply chains. Similarly, the Modi-Trump talks emphasized sorting out tariff disputes. The most significant recent development, however, is the plan to negotiate a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).

Following challenging experiences with World Trade Organization talks and an unsuccessful attempt at a Bilateral Investment Treaty during the final months of George W. Bush’s administration, there has been minimal enthusiasm for ambitious trade discussions. Even the near-completed “mini-deal” during Trump’s first tenure was more akin to a ceasefire than an agreement to expand market access. However, India’s smart gesture was revealed as Prime Minister Modi demonstrated increased receptiveness to genuine trade negotiations. Regarding defense collaboration, the leaders have pledged to pursue new initiatives, including negotiating a mutual defense procurement agreement and collaborating on autonomous systems. It is remarkable that the joint statement resonated with mutual faith and consensus of working together with express commitment “to break new ground to support and sustain the overseas deployment of the U.S. and Indian militaries in the Indo-Pacific”.

This could indicate significant advancements in defense cooperation as the two nations enhance interoperability and jointly improve regional security. Another key point in the joint statement was the U.S.’s intent to reassess its policy on sharing fifth-generation fighter aircraft and undersea systems. President Trump explicitly mentioned a potential pathway for selling F-35 fighter jets to India. Joint efforts to create defense equipment are still on the agenda, even though it was not inevitable. The leaders emphasized ongoing collaboration on nuclear energy for civilian purposes in sync with India’s recent announcement to modify the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010. The INDUS-X platform for expanding defense innovation cooperation has been renamed INDUS Innovation. Collaboration on “trusted and resilient supply chains” for critical and emerging technologies remains a bilateral priority.

Space cooperation continues to be a crucial component of the agenda, bolstered by recent collaborative agreements. The Biden administration heavily promoted the initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET). Noticeably while the joint statement echoes some priority sectors and workstreams, it does not explicitly mention iCET. However, observers are rendered despondent because both sides were reticent on climate cooperation, a burning issue of global governance on which President Trump has a dismal record. The statement also omitted mention of important dialogues such as the U.S.-India Forum, the U.S.-India 2+2 Ministerial, Trade Policy Forum, and the U.S.-India Commercial Dialogue, leaving their status uncertain.

In conclusion, the meeting keeps alive optimism. Substantial work lies ahead, as most key announcements, including the potential trade deal, are expected to yield concrete results by year-end. India might face additional trade pressures in the coming months, such as when the study related to the Trump administration’s “Fair and Reciprocal Trade” policy concludes. However, regarding the overall U.S.-India relationship, the positive aspects at the start of President Trump’s second term significantly outweigh the anticipated challenges. India will have to decide whether to stand by and watch from the sidelines or stand up to its principles and ideology, much like it did when the US tried to pressure India not to buy oil from Russia in 2022. The contours of India’s approach may become clearer in days to come.

(The writers are, respectively, Prof & Head, Dept. of Political Science, SKB University, Purulia, and Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Ramananda College, Bishnupur, Bankura.)