A String of Missed Meetings
In June, President Trump invited Prime Minister Modi to stop over in the United States during his return from Canada — an offer Modi declined. Later, the U.S. extended another invitation to attend the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit this month, commemorating Trump’s role in ending the Israel–Palestine war. Modi again declined, deputing a junior minister instead.
Currently, Trump is attending the ASEAN Summit in Malaysia, where Modi has chosen to participate virtually. This marks only the second time in a decade that the Indian Prime Minister has skipped the summit in person.
In contrast, Modi is set to travel to Johannesburg, South Africa, in November for the G20 Summit — an event President Trump has already confirmed he will not attend.
If current patterns hold, the two leaders are unlikely to meet in person for nearly a year, their last face-to-face interaction being in February in Washington, D.C. Despite three phone calls since then, no tangible outcomes have emerged.
Publicly, the rhetoric remains cordial — Modi continues to commend Trump’s peace efforts, while Trump calls him a “good friend.” Yet behind these pleasantries lies a perceptible cooling of ties.
From “Howdy Modi” to Hesitant Optics
The contrast with 2019–2020 could not be starker. Then, the world watched the leaders’ shared public spectacles — the massive “Howdy Modi” rally in Houston and the “Namaste Trump” event in India — symbolising a vibrant personal and diplomatic rapport.
That phase saw ambitious talk of expanded trade, defence cooperation, and energy ties. For India, Trump’s U.S. was a crucial strategic partner in its global ascent; for the U.S., India was the Indo-Pacific linchpin in countering China’s influence.
But after Trump’s return to the presidency earlier this year, fault lines began to reappear.
In May, tensions surfaced when Trump claimed credit for halting the India–Pakistan conflict following India’s Operation Sindoor in Pahalgam — a claim India swiftly denied. By June, friction over trade, energy, and optics began to deepen.
Key Fault Lines: Trade, Energy, and Optics
1. Trade and Tariffs
Washington has maintained a tough stance on trade imbalances, pressing India to open its agriculture and dairy sectors while imposing steep 50 percent tariffs on Indian goods. New Delhi has resisted, asserting that trade cooperation cannot come “with a gun to its head.”
2. Energy and Russia
India’s continued import of Russian oil remains a sticking point. Despite U.S. pressure to scale down purchases, India has maintained its position, rejecting Trump’s assertion that imports would fall to “almost nothing.”
3. Diplomatic Optics
Both leaders have strong domestic constituencies that equate compromise with weakness. For Modi, appearing compliant to U.S. demands could undercut his image of strategic autonomy; for Trump, meetings without visible wins may seem politically unrewarding.
Avoiding Unfavourable Optics
Analysts suggest Modi’s recent absences are not simply scheduling coincidences but deliberate diplomatic signalling.
The decision to skip the Sharm el-Sheikh event, for instance, is seen as avoiding a setting that might have proved awkward. During the summit, Trump invited Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif on stage, who publicly lauded Trump for “ending the India–Pakistan conflict” and even recommended him for a Nobel Peace Prize — remarks that ran counter to India’s official position that the U.S. had no role in the ceasefire.
Had Modi attended, he would have been forced to listen to those claims firsthand — an uncomfortable spectacle for any Indian leader.
Thus, avoiding such encounters may be less about evading Trump personally and more about preserving diplomatic dignity and avoiding optics that could undermine India’s position.
Strategic Autonomy and Controlled Engagement
India’s approach appears to be one of measured restraint — engaging where necessary, but avoiding unnecessary displays of subordination.
Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal recently underscored this stance, saying that India “will not rush into a trade agreement under pressure.” His statement, emphasising mutual trust and long-term partnership, is widely viewed as a signal that New Delhi seeks strategic autonomy, not transactional compliance.
Two Possible Trajectories Ahead
Scenario A – Reset and Re-engagement
Recognising the strategic weight of the India–U.S. relationship, both leaders may eventually opt for a reboot. This could involve a high-level meeting accompanied by concrete announcements on trade or defence — a move to restore momentum and public warmth.
Scenario B – Continued Drift and Functional Diplomacy
Alternatively, the relationship may continue in a pragmatic, low-profile mode, with ministries and bureaucracies maintaining operational cooperation even as top-level interactions cool. India could further diversify partnerships through BRICS, Russia, and China, maintaining balance without overdependence on Washington.
A Shift from Personal Chemistry to Institutional Pragmatism
The apparent distance between Modi and Trump reflects a nuanced recalibration rather than rupture. Personal chemistry once defined the relationship; now, institutional continuity and strategic calculation have taken precedence.
The optics of a “bromance” may have faded, but the underlying partnership — anchored in shared interests across security, technology, and geopolitics — remains intact.
In diplomacy, what matters as much as the meetings that happen are those that don’t. The latest phase of Modi–Trump relations underscores a simple truth: sometimes, silence and distance speak louder than declarations and handshakes.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.