Namaste Trump, Goodbye Dignity

 When the history of Indian diplomacy under Narendra Modi is eventually written, it may be remembered not for its strategic breakthroughs, but for its theatrical excesses, its silences in moments of crisis, and its worrying penchant for personalisation over institutional prudence.

Modi’s foreign policy, by design, was never meant to be quiet or cautious. From the grand gestures of “Namaste Trump” to his surprise visits to Pakistan, it has been high on drama and low on deliverables. It has sought headlines, not long-term relationships. Unfortunately, in foreign affairs, style without substance often invites consequences.

Let us begin closer home. In 2015, when a devastating earthquake struck Nepal, India was the first responder. This was an admirable and expected act by a regional power. However, what could have been a reaffirmation of India’s neighbourhood leadership quickly descended into a public relations disaster. Kathmandu’s citizens and civil society accused India of using humanitarian aid as a backdrop for media optics. “India came with cameras,” they said, highlighting the growing perception that New Delhi’s engagement was more self-serving than sincere.

This perception, regrettably, isn’t limited to Nepal. Across Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and the Maldives, India’s actions are increasingly viewed with scepticism. In each case, the heavy-handedness of New Delhi’s approach — sometimes economic, sometimes military — appears less like partnership and more like patronage. The vocabulary of Hindutva, which seeps into diplomacy through cultural symbolism and ideological confidence, alienates more than it embraces.

On the larger global stage, the failings are even more stark.

China, India’s most serious strategic rival, continues its salami-slicing tactics along the LAC. Successive disengagements have been uneven and far from reassuring. The Chinese military presence in Ladakh remains deeply concerning, yet the Modi government chooses silence over forthrightness. Why this reluctance to level with the public? Analysts have rightly linked the Ladakh stand-off to the revocation of Article 370 — a decision that may have played well domestically, but provoked responses from both Islamabad and Beijing. The latter did not just express displeasure — it acted.

Meanwhile, the diplomatic mess with Canada has taken an even darker turn. The 2018 visit of Justin Trudeau was badly mishandled by the Indian side — a case study in how not to receive a democratic head of state. Years later, Canada accused Indian operatives of involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a charge denied by New Delhi. What was distressing, however, was not just the accusation — but the celebratory tone struck by some pro-government voices in India. When the state or its affiliates appear to revel in gangster justice, we must ask: where are the lines between statecraft and vigilantism?

If these missteps were regional or bilateral, they would be bad enough. But the greatest paradox of Modi’s foreign policy is the relationship with Donald Trump. What began with bear hugs and stadium spectacles has ended in a humiliating series of snubs, tariffs, and taunts.

The deportation of undocumented Indian migrants from the U.S. — many of them paraded in handcuffs — was not just a law enforcement exercise. It was a message. The fact that one of the planes was rerouted from Ahmedabad to Amritsar, presumably to protect Modi’s political brand in Gujarat, reflects a troubling blend of foreign policy and domestic political image management. Worse, some Sikh deportees were reportedly asked to remove their turbans — a deep cultural affront. The official response? Deafening silence.

Later came the bizarre episode around “Operation Sindoor” — India’s military response to the Pahalgam attack. Instead of rallying behind India, the U.S. issued a muted, bland statement. Trump, ever the showman, seized the opportunity and publicly declared himself the architect of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan — something India’s own Ministry of External Affairs did not confirm. Since then, he has repeated the claim over thirty times. And still, New Delhi remains silent. Why?

Even more alarming were Trump’s subsequent declarations: that five jets were downed during the cross-border skirmish (again, unacknowledged by India), followed by punitive 25% tariffs on Indian goods. If that weren’t enough, Trump hosted Pakistan’s General Muneer at the White House and proclaimed India’s economy “dead,” equating it with Russia’s. This was no longer personal pique; it was a targeted dismantling of Modi’s foreign policy narrative.

Modi’s political appeal rests on three pillars: economic stewardship, global recognition, and national pride rooted in Hindutva. Trump’s recent moves undercut all three. The Indian economy, already faltering, was dealt a psychological blow. India’s supposed stature as “Vishwaguru” lies tattered in the face of growing global indifference or irritation. And the religious nationalism that forms the emotional core of Modi’s support was mocked — not by Pakistan, but by his erstwhile American friend.

And so we must ask: why is Trump doing this?

One theory suggests Trump wants to force a tighter military embrace with India — but the method is odd, even insulting. Another posits that he seeks to export American agriculture into India’s markets — but why disparage India’s economy in the process? A more plausible theory lies in the shifting dynamics of BRICS. With the grouping’s talk of de-dollarisation gaining traction, Washington fears the emergence of a bloc challenging its financial hegemony. India, potentially, is the only swing state within BRICS. Perhaps Trump wishes to isolate it, or manipulate it. The bigger question is — will Modi resist, or capitulate?

For all the talk of “strategic autonomy,” what we are witnessing is something closer to strategic incoherence. The problem is not just the mishandling of this or that relationship — it is the very idea that foreign policy can be run as a personal brand, detached from institutions, history, or consequence.

History will not be kind to leaders who mistake spectacle for strategy.

"हस्ती का एतबार भी क्या, दोस्त ही जब दुश्मन निकले,
ग़ालिब ये ज़ुल्म तो हमने अजनबियों से भी ना देखे थे।"
(What faith can one have in existence, when even friends turn foe?
Ghalib, such cruelty we hadn’t seen even from strangers.)