US President Donald Trump finally met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G7 summit after a 16-month hiatus. During this period, according to many observers of India-US relations, bilateral relations deteriorated significantly. A partnership that was gaining momentum quickly moved in the opposite direction – most recently (and most tragically) with the killing of three Indian sailors by the U.S. military.
Much was expected of their meeting on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Evian, France. This offered both leaders, and both countries, an opportunity to hit the reset button and recognize the deeper structural reasons for remaining partners. Their relationship is based on shared strategic interests, broad economic ties, strong people-to-people relationships, and broad convergence on the need to ensure that China’s rise does not destabilize the global order.
Although Trump and Modi are right-wing populist leaders who often override democratic and pluralistic values, the United States and India continue to invoke democracy and pluralism as part of their global identities. These shared values can further strengthen their partnership. The G7 meeting was an opportunity to stop the drift, restore trust and restore meaning to what former President Joe Biden once described as one of the most important relationships in world politics.
Unfortunately, like US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to India in May, this meeting also failed, in my view, to make a difference. No significant commitments have been made on either side. But we saw a different Modi: less confident, more subdued, restrained in his body language and surprisingly eager to please.
In the few minutes he spoke, Modi made only two substantive points. First, he stressed the importance of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and free for trade. Second, he reminded Trump that hundreds of thousands of Indians serve as sailors around the world and that their safety must be kept in mind as the United States attempts to establish peace agreements in West Asia.
But beyond that, Modi’s remarks consisted largely of repeated praise of Trump’s peace initiatives. He praised the US president for supposedly bringing peace, stability and a new glimmer of hope to West Asia. Watching the bilateral meeting, I had the uncomfortable, even worrying feeling that Modi might end his speech by promising to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. It was almost surreal – like watching an episode of “The Twilight Zone.”
Trump, on the other hand, has remained entirely faithful to his ways. He praised Modi, but even his compliments were backhanded. He called Modi an “angel”, but also described him as a “killer” when it comes to negotiations. He then presented himself once again as an indispensable peacemaker, claiming that he had brought peace to eight conflicts – one of which, implicitly, concerned India and Pakistan. Modi, remarkably, said nothing in response.
Trump also trivialized a question about the defense partnership. He casually said that he would of course defend India if it was attacked, but then added that this would be true as long as Modi remained India’s leader. The implication was absurd but telling: If India were ruled by someone else, would American support become conditional? Does the defense relationship between the two great powers now no longer depend on institutions, interests, treaties or strategy, but on Trump’s personal affection for Modi? In Trump’s diplomacy, casualness often reveals more than prepared statements.
Trump also made an offhand comment that he would visit India in the future. Yet Modi did not take the opportunity to formally invite him – whether to sign a trade deal or to attend the Quad Leaders’ Summit, which was said to have already taken place a year ago. A formal invitation to India would have given both leaders a concrete diplomatic benchmark around which to organize the next phase of engagement.
We can say that there was nothing disastrous in the Trump-Modi meeting. But there was also nothing significant, memorable, or reassuring to suggest the relationship was improving. There has been no serious discussion about when a trade deal could be signed. There has been no visible movement on the Indo-Pacific strategy. There was no mention of the Quad. There was no substantive conversation about military equipment purchases. There was no discussion about the situation with student visas or H-1B visas, which cause considerable stress for both the Indian talent pool and the U.S. companies that depend on it.
The silence on the Quad and the Indo-Pacific is particularly significant because Trump, in his brief opening speech, mentioned that his next summit would be the G2 summit with China. It’s important. A successful G2 deal between Washington and Beijing would inevitably reduce the importance of the Indo-Pacific and the Quad. The entire logic of the India-US strategic partnership, including the Quad and Indo-Pacific framework, is based in part on the shared concern that China’s rise must be balanced. If Trump now seeks a big deal with China, India may find itself less central to US strategy than it imagined.
What was left unsaid was most telling. India is a major and rising global power that claims to speak for the South. Yet Modi did not use this moment to criticize Trump’s chosen war – a war that has not been sanctioned by either the United Nations or the US Congress. He did not talk about its upheaval of the global economy, its contribution to inflation or its impact on the working class around the world. He also did not dispute the violations of international norms involved in attacks on schools, unarmed ships and civilian vessels.
Instead, Modi seemed to have a narrower goal: to go home claiming he had raised the issue of dead Indian sailors. But he did not demand an apology. He did not demand accountability for their deaths. Trump, sensing Modi’s reluctance, expressed neither regret nor empathy for the dead Indian sailors. Indians outraged and angry at the deaths of these sailors will not be satisfied with this result.
For a meeting meant to reset the relationship, this silence was striking. This revealed not only the asymmetry of the encounter, but also the limits of India’s willingness to speak with moral clarity in the face of American power.
The meeting did not move the relationship forward. If anything, it may have moved the needle in the opposite direction. It exposed the fragility of India-US relations under Trump and the unease of an Indian prime minister who seemed more interested in pleasing Trump than asserting India’s interests. For a partnership that both sides described as consequential, the meeting was remarkably inconsequential.