Under the guise of strong-arming India for reduced tariffs and amplified purchase of American goods, former President Donald Trump tried to balance the trade imbalance between the two nations. In an attempt to show himself as a peacemaker, he extended his hand to address India’s security concerns. With a theatrical flourish, he pledged action against disruptive elements in the US, such as the Khalistani separatists, seen as a threat to India’s sovereignty. His lack of subtlety was evident when he publicly announced the impending extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a former Pakistani Army doctor convicted for his connection to the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
Trump’s declaration ‘We are giving a very violent man back to India immediately,’ with the promise of more to follow, was met with skepticism. His claims of a large number of pending requests and cooperation with India on crime raised eyebrows at its credibility. The assertion ‘We want to make things better for India’ came across disingenuous, given his track record with international relationships. Despite his show of camaraderie, Trump’s narrative seemed to be one of patronising superiority, rather than mutual respect.
Indicative of a rather misguided self-belief, Trump posited that both Washington and New Delhi would join forces to confront ‘the threat of radical Islamic terrorism’. This was swiftly followed up by a joint statement committing the Trump administration to execute ‘decisive action’ against groups threatening India’s territorial integrity. The commitment, however, seemed more of a showmanship rather than a sincere pledge to India’s safety and sovereignty.
For years, Khalistani separatists have attacked Indian missions and threatened Indian diplomats while running unabated in the US and Canada. When confronted at the press conference, Trump promptly denied any US involvement in the turmoil in Bangladesh. He conveniently passed on the responsibility to India, effectively disavowing any role for America’s secret services. ‘This is something that the Prime Minister has been working on for a long time…’, Trump shrugged, leaving the mess in the lap of PM Modi.
This abdication of accountability seemed to mark Trump’s preferred approach to international issues. ‘There was no role for our deep state’, he claimed, successfully deflecting any responsibility. Trump then nonchalantly declared that he would ‘leave Bangladesh to the Prime Minister’. PM Modi, on the other hand, returned trump’s casual dismissal by openly supporting his plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war, seemingly in complete contrast to Trump’s ambivalence.
Despite the superficial camaraderie, cracks in the conversation began to show when Trump offered to intervene in the tensions between India and China. He superficially noted the violent skirmishes on the border, stating wistfully ‘If I could be of help, I’d love to help…’, indicating his lack of understanding of the deep-rooted history and cultural complexities of the region.
Trump, with his penchant for injecting himself into complex situations, observed ‘That’s been going on for a long time and it’s quite violent.’ Quick to reject his offer, Indian officials pointed to New Delhi’s historical bilateral approach in such matters, further emphasizing the disconnect between Trump’s perspective and the reality of international diplomacy.
Nearing the end of 2020, India and China returned to discussions regarding their border dispute, after a near half-decade stand-off. Trump’s casual offer to mediate, viewed against this backdrop, unsurprisingly went unheeded, calling into highlight his rather simplistic and naive perspective on delicate matters of global diplomacy.