Modi’s global image takes a hit

The image Narendra Modi sought as a world leader who is principled and autonomous has been broken.

Three episodes in the new year indicate a significant erosion in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s global image. They are: India’s inability to condemn the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Donald Trump’s claim that Modi reduced the import of Russian oil “to make me happy”, and India having to hire lobbying firms for diplomatic access in Washington DC.

India issued only a statement of “deep concern” on the forcible extraction of Maduro, claiming that it was monitoring the situation and urging peaceful dialogue. It refused to denounce the action by US forces as an illegal kidnapping.

In its hesitation on Venezuela, the Modi government was not any different from India’s fence-sitting on Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (Prague Spring) in 1968, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979. Even though India now would like to be closer to the US, it has not condemned the Soviet invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and consistently abstains from UN votes condemning Russia.

Modi, however, did exhibit some of his vaunted ‘strategic autonomy’ by publicly telling Vladimir Putin in Samarkand in September 2022, “This is not an era of war.” It is doubtful whether today he will be able to tell Trump, ‘This is not the era of kidnapping presidents of sovereign countries.’

It might be argued that India’s growing defence and technology partnership with the US, low stakes in Venezuela, and the need to avoid friction with the US have led to its hesitation in condemning blatant US imperialism. But it weakens India’s solidarity with and leadership of the Global South.

India can hardly speak up for the objectives of equity, justice, and multipolarity that the Global South strives for, when they are incompatible with the unilateral and illegal military intervention by the US in Venezuela.

The prime minister’s image is also affected by Trump’s recent claim that Modi acted on reducing Russian oil imports to please him. But Trump’s praise is conditional — its approval of Indian leadership contingent on constantly falling in line with his demands. Even as Trump called him a “good man”, he warned that punitive tariffs (already at 50%) could be hiked further if India did not comply. In Trump’s telling, India’s strategic choices are reduced to gestures of personal appeasement, undermining Modi’s image as an independent world leader.

India may claim that its oil imports are determined by oil price and its energy security needs, but Trump continues to portray the relationship as one where he is the dominant player and Modi, a deferential favour seeker. Not surprisingly, India’s Opposition has criticised Modi for “bending before Trump”, willing to compromise India’s strategic independence for US approval.

India’s global image has also been chipped by details surfacing that it had to employ a lobbying firm in the US. While it is both legal and normal for foreign countries to hire lobbying firms in the US, it is for gaining direct access to US Congressmen, the White House and federal departments. Lobbyists open doors for their clients to shape US legislation, trade rules, sanctions, defence co-operation, etc. by framing arguments that will resonate with US policy makers. 

But it appears that lobbying firms must now be used even for basic diplomacy like arranging telephone calls, emails, or appointments, which used to be done bilaterally. Last year, India hired two lobbying firms — SHW Partners LLC, run by Jason Miller, a former Trump adviser, and Mercury Public Affairs, where India is handled by two individuals close to Trump, former Republican Senator David Ritter and former deputy communications director for the Trump-Pence campaign in 2016 and then the J D Vance campaign, Bryan Lanza.

The yearlong contract with SHW is for $150,000 per month (approx Rs 16.20 crore per year) began after the Pahalgam terror attack and Trump’s claim that he had brokered ceasefire during Operation Sindoor. Mercury was signed for three months in mid-August at $75,000 per month when India-US ties were hit by high tariffs.

SHW has filed details of its lobbying activities under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) with the US Justice Department. They show that India’s institutional diplomacy was so weak in times of crises that it had to hire lobbying firms close to Trump to even get telephonic access to his administration. They also show that India’s foreign minister S Jaishankar, believed to have unparalleled access in Washington, had to rely on the lobbying firm to secure meetings with Vice President Vance, Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth, and even the CIA director.

The expanded role of lobbying firms suggests that India’s diplomacy has been reduced to what some strategic experts term the ‘pay-to-play dynamics’ of Washington under Trump as the usual avenues of diplomacy have broken down. Even if it is granted that under Trump formal modes of communication have been subordinated to informal channels, it busts the perception that Modi enjoys an effortless reach to Trump. Indeed, Trump presents him as a supplicant ostensibly asking, “Sir, may I see you please?”

The FARA filings confirm that Indian diplomats relied on the lobbying firm not once, but routinely for access. Three pages of tabulated entries show a pattern of dependency on the lobbying firm even for routine telephone calls and meetings — paying upfront for access — rather than through direct diplomatic channels. It appears that India lacks the diplomatic capital to have normal conversations with the State Department, the Pentagon, the US Trade Representative, or the White House.

In terms of outcomes, the money paid to them seems to have been largely wasted. SHW was unable to significantly modulate Trump’s narrative on Operation Sindoor and his role in ensuring the India-Pakistan ceasefire. Similarly, Mercury seems to have limited impact on the trade talks or tariff relief. In fact, by the routine use of lobbying firms, the Modi government ended up highlighting the institutional weakness of its diplomacy in Washington, and suggests that India does not command the respect it aspires to.

Trump’s patronising claims make Modi look inconsistent as a defender of sovereignty and weak in relation to Trump. The image Modi sought as a world leader who is principled and autonomous has been broken. It is likely that the Global South will increasingly see India’s leadership as opportunistic and inconsistent, while Trump continues to view India as a nation it can play cat-and-mouse with.

Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.