Much ado about Modi-Trump rapport
In the Q&A session after his address at the silver jubilee celebrations of the Aditya Birla Scholarships on November 10, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar was asked: “How do you see the US presidential election outcome impacting Indo-US relations, especially given Prime Minister Modi’s strong personal rapport with President Trump?” The question was straightforward, but Jaishankar’s initial response was surprising. He said, “What do you mean ‘especially given’? I mean we have it taken care of. PM Modi’s was among the first three calls that President Trump took.”
Thereafter, he clarified that Modi had a good rapport with Obama, Trump and Biden, the three US Presidents the PM had dealt with. He went on to say that it was natural for Modi to ‘forge’ relationships. These have helped ‘hugely’, as have changes in India, he added. Jaishankar concluded his answer with these words: “I know today that a lot of countries are nervous about the US — let’s be honest about it — we are not one of them”.
The only interpretation that can be made of Jaishankar’s initial and closing remarks taken together, as they must be because they are logically connected, is that India ensured that Modi’s ‘special rapport’ with Trump continued. What he left unsaid was that India worked hard for it. That flows from the sentence, “I mean we have it taken care of”, and the assertion that India is one of those countries that is not ‘nervous’ about Trump becoming the next US President. The satisfaction, if not the exultation, from the fact that Modi was among the first to congratulate Trump was obvious.
Trump will again hold the world’s most important political office and the US will continue to be the pre-eminent global power. It is important from India’s viewpoint to have a good working relationship between the Prime Minister and the US President. That noted, there are two significant points: one that is based on an obvious diplomatic verity and the second that flows from the spirit of India’s freedom movement.
Let’s focus first on the second. The entire thrust of the freedom movement was to place national self-respect and dignity above all else. Don’t the words which imply that ‘we’ are in the good books of the world’s most powerful incoming leader come perilously close to a sentiment that is best expressed in the words of Ghalib, “Bana hai shah ka musahib, phire hai itarata”? How else can the obvious pride in Modi being one of the first callers to Trump be interpreted? And all this was said to young scholars! Was this in keeping with India’s democratic ethos in Amrit Kaal. Is the spirit of the freedom movement to be abandoned? Yes, the world is divided among the powerful and the weak, but India has always stood for a global democratic order, not a global feudal one.
A friend whose views I greatly value virtually told me that I am living in a time warp. That I have not given up the sentiments that animated our foreign policy during the period of decolonisation. It was further said to me that this is a world of ‘strong men and women’ and India must accept that fact and be guided by realism rather than remaining stuck with old notions of idealism. And realism demands getting on good terms with the strong men and women of the world to safeguard and promote India’s interests.
What my friend mentioned to me about the contemporary world is true. For instance, every country will have to manage Trump and his policies as well as actions. But the question is: How does a country deal with him? Does it maintain its dignity or give, even inadvertently, a perception of obsequiousness? A simple statement that India looked forward to taking the India-US relationship comprehensively forward under President Trump — as it has with bipartisan support under previous administrations, including that of Trump — would have been dignified. A reference to how quickly Trump responded to Modi’s call may be accurate, but it gives a different impression. And, a special rapport between our leader and others doesn’t have to be advertised despite the demands of contemporary diplomacy and realism.
Now, to focus on the first point. It is always dangerous to base an inter-state relationship on the personal attitude of a foreign leader. It is true that a leader acts as a funnel to finally articulate the position of a state on bilateral relations or in the multilateral context. However, even in the days of absolute kings and emperors, a wise leader did not base his state’s approaches on his own whims and fancies but on objective assessments of his country’s interests. Ties of kinship, too, were not allowed to intrude in these assessments. After all, the kings of many countries that fought World War I were cousins. And, the Mahabharata war was among cousins too.
Hence, history bears witness to the truth that personal relations and even a strong rapport between leaders ultimately have to give way to the interests of states. And, Jaishankar would know this from his experience of dealing with China.
This does not mean that personal ties of leaders cannot smoothen diplomatic processes, but their contribution can never be more than that, especially when the vital interests of a state are involved. The rapid changes being witnessed around the world on account of technological developments have made the determination of national interest more complex. The present flux in the global balance of power has also done so. However, the basics of inter-state relations have not changed.
Certainly, the values that are the precious legacy of the freedom movement cannot be or perceived to be compromised. The Indian political and strategic classes cannot overlook this great inheritance even as they navigate the vagaries that will surely come during the Trump 2.0 era.
