US-India strategic partnership remains robust but slight chill in Modi-Trump ties may cause temporary turbulence

In an earlier article on the second postponement of US-India 2+2 dialogue, I had posited that it does not reflect a degradation in the current state of bilateral ties. The foundational pillars of this relationship — shared values, security interests and apprehensions — remain strong and immune from political interference. Ergo, to interpret the delay (likely a scheduling issue) as indicative of a “setback” or even a “snub” is premature and alarmist. That said, if dovetailing of strategic and security interests ensure stability in bilateral relations, it has to be complemented by mutual goodwill at a political level for ties to remain wrinkle-free and grow progressively closer. This is especially true of relationships that still carry traces of past baggage and even more so with respect to India, whose behaviour on the international stage is still largely determined by the memory of its colonial past. As Sumit Ganguly and Manjeet S Pardesi of Indiana University in Bloomington note in their paper Explaining Sixty Years of India’s Foreign Policy for Taylor & Francis Online, “…the memories of colonial rule contributed to a political culture which privileged the concept of national autonomy. The desire to maintain the greatest possible independence in the conduct of India’s foreign affairs was a sentiment that pervaded the country. Public opinion, to the limited extent that it was concerned with foreign affairs, would find any notion of deference to external powers to be intolerable…” [caption id=“attachment_4481899” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of Narendra Modi and Donald Trump. AP[/caption] It is incumbent on both the US and India to contextualise this reality and weave it into a burgeoning and fruitful alliance, which means notwithstanding structural compatibilities, the relationship requires constant and intense political nurturing. As JNU professor Rajesh Rajagopalan observes in ORF , “even after the US and India began building a strategic partnership, India was extremely sensitive about the nature of the relationship. India was the high-maintenance partner and the US has generally been much more careful and considerate.” It is here that US-India partnership is headed for a period of short-term turbulence because unlike previous US administrations, the Donald Trump White House is not worried about the bigger picture. It has introduced new metrics into the relationship — such as reciprocal trade — and has sought to define partnerships (not just with India) solely through achievements on that scale without commensurate allowance for depth or convergence in other areas. Author Alyssa Ayres, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former deputy assistant secretary for South Asia in the Barack Obama administration, writes in Hindustan Times : “Trump foreign policy can zero in on an arbitrarily-chosen economic metric, fixate on it, and no strategic concern or history of alliance strength can compensate.” This is why Trump has made a big deal out of US trade deficit with India, which — at $24 billion — is a pittance compared to Washington’s trade deficit with Beijing . Reports say New Delhi’s surplus has reduced by nearly $1 billion this year while overall trade has jumped by $13 billion to touch $125 billion in 2017-18. In the same period, US trade deficit with China grew by over $25 billion to about $375 billion. In Trump’s bipolar world, these caveats are meaningless. He has made US-made luxury motorcycles the focal point of his tirade and has mocked Narendra Modi repeatedly over high tariffs on these imports which in any case won’t amount to even one per cent of bilateral trade. Harley Davidson, the Wisconsin-based firm, was itself reportedly taken aback by Trump’s truculent stand but that didn’t stop the US president from taking an unflattering public stand against the Indian prime minister. And herein lies the epicenter of temporal turbulence that now afflicts the ties. Not unlike Trump, Modi places a lot of emphasis in striking a personal chord with heads of states. It is simultaneously his personal trait and belief. Modi has assiduously developed an image of a “strong leader” and finds it easier to take foreign policy equations out of the ambit of rigid bureaucratic structures and place it within a malleable, personalised context. Modi also considers personal chemistry a far more effective tool in addressing and untying geopolitical knots. In this respect, his behaviour is consistent with other heads of states who similarly perceive themselves as “strong leaders” — such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin or even Donald Trump. It may not be purely coincidental that the Doka La crisis was resolved not very long after Modi had an impromptu meeting with Xi on the sidelines of G20 summit in Hamburg. Equally, the Wuhan “informal summit”, which has been interpreted as India’s outreach towards China to lower the temperature in bilateral relations, was essentially a ‘get-to-know-each-other’ exercise (keeping aside the diplomats) driven by a belief that trust and mutual understanding between Modi and Xi will percolate down the ranks and remove some misunderstandings. “We have paid reciprocal visits, met on multiple occasions, and reached many important consensuses over the past three years, which acted as a guidance to the positive development momentum of bilateral ties,” Chinese state news agency Xinhua had quoted Xi as saying . Similarly, Modi’s Russia visit was as much aimed at addressing undercurrents of drift as striking a personal bond with Putin — a job in which he appears to have been successful. The Russian president reportedly turned “emotional” as Modi struck a chord and bid the prime minister farewell at the airport in a rare gesture. The Chinese outreach seems to be resulting in similar dividends with Beijing lowering barriers on some Indian exports and reducing tarrifs and even sending a high-level PLA delegation to India to “build trust”. Similarly, the Reserve Bank of India has issued a licence to Bank of China to operate in India, which analysts say is the result of a promise made to Xi by Modi.

Not to place too big a stress on it, personal chemistry lies at the front and centre of Modi’s foreign policy. That’s why he wouldn’t have taken kindly to Trump revealing details about the telephonic conversation over Harley Davidson bikes which Modi must have assumed would be kept private. He’d be even less impressed at the mocking tone adopted by Trump at a public forum. Though Modi has been careful not to have reacted to it (at least publicly), his subsequent “unexpectedly vigorous outreaches to China and Russia this year,” as The Economist puts it , is interesting. Also notable is the gap between Modi and Jim Mattis’ speech at the Shangri La dialogue where the prime minister hit out at US protectionism, adopted a balanced tone and refrained from mentioning “Quad” in his keynote address, qualifying that “India does not see the Indo-Pacific Region as a strategy or as a club of limited members.” Here, Modi’s behaviour is of greater interest than Trump’s because world leaders are slowly learning to interpret POTUS tantrums as the ’new normal’ and beginning to take it in their stride. Modi’s subtle but unmistakable positioning is indicative of a chill that has replaced the earlier warmth in Modi-Trump relationship. This lack of amity at the highest political level and little interaction between ministers on both sides (delay in 2+2 won’t help) may bring into sharper focus the headwinds that face both countries on Russia and Iran. These are not earth-shattering issues and nothing that both sets of administrations cannot sort out and yet these demand a degree of engagement that is missing at the moment. The world’s largest and oldest democracies could have done without these wrinkles.