U.S. President Donald Trump finally met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G-7 summit after a 16-month hiatus. During this period, according to many observers of India-U.S. relations, the bilateral relationship has deteriorated significantly. A partnership that had been gaining momentum took rapid strides in the opposite direction – most recently (and most tragically) with the killing of three Indian sailors by the U.S. military.
Much was expected from their meeting on the sidelines of the G-7 summit at Evian in France. It offered both leaders, and both countries, an opportunity to press the reset button and acknowledge the deeper structural reasons for them to remain partners. Their relationship rests on shared strategic interests, expanding economic ties, robust people-to-people relations, and a broad convergence on the need to ensure that China’s rise does not destabilize the global order.
Despite the fact that Trump and Modi are right-wing populist leaders who often override democratic and pluralist values, both the United States and India continue to invoke democracy and pluralism as part of their global identity. These shared values can further cement their partnership. The G-7 meeting was a chance to arrest the drift, repair trust, and restore purpose to what former President Joe Biden once described as one of the most consequential relationships in world politics.
Unfortunately, like U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to India in May, this meeting too, in my opinion, failed to move the needle. There were no significant commitments from 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 that he spoke, Modi made only two substantive points. First, he emphasized the importance of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and free for trade and commerce. Second, he reminded Trump that hundreds of thousands of Indians serve as mariners across the world, and that their safety must be kept in mind as the United States pursues peace arrangements in West Asia.
Beyond that, however, Modi’s remarks consisted largely of repeated praise for Trump’s peace initiatives. He congratulated the U.S. president for supposedly bringing peace, stability, and a new ray of hope to West Asia. As I watched the bilateral meeting, I had the uncomfortable, even disquieting, thought that Modi might end his remarks by promising to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. It felt almost surreal — like watching an episode of “The Twilight Zone.”
Trump, on the other hand, remained entirely true to form. 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 proceeded, once again, to present himself as the indispensable peacemaker, claiming that he had brought peace to eight conflicts — one of which, by implication, was India and Pakistan. Modi, remarkably, said nothing in response.
Trump also trivialized a question about the defense partnership. He said, casually, that of course he would defend India if it were attacked, but then added that this would be true as long as Modi remained India’s leader. The implication was absurd but revealing: if India were led by someone else, would American support become conditional? Was the defense relationship between two major powers now dependent not on institutions, interests, treaties, or strategy, but on Trump’s personal affection for Modi? In Trump’s diplomacy, flippancy often reveals more than prepared statements do.
Trump also made a casual comment that he would visit India sometime in the future. Yet Modi did not seize the moment to invite him formally — either to sign a trade deal or to attend the Quad Leaders’ Summit, which is already a year overdue. A formal invitation to India would have given both leaders a concrete diplomatic marker around which to organize the next phase of engagement.
One can say that there was nothing disastrous about the Trump-Modi meeting. But there was also nothing significant, memorable, or reassuring to suggest that the relationship is mending. There was no serious discussion of when a trade deal might be signed. There was no visible movement on the Indo-Pacific strategy. There was no mention of the Quad. There was no substantive conversation about defense purchases. There was no discussion about the student visa or H-1B visa situation, which is causing considerable stress both for India’s talent pool and for the American corporations that depend on it.
The silence on the Quad and the Indo-Pacific is especially significant because Trump, in his brief opening remarks, mentioned that his next summit would be the G-2 summit with China. This matters. A successful G-2 understanding between Washington and Beijing would inevitably reduce the importance of the Indo-Pacific and the Quad. The entire logic of the India-U.S. strategic partnership, including the Quad and the Indo-Pacific framework, has rested in part on the shared concern that China’s rise must be balanced. If Trump now seeks a grand bargain with China, then India may find itself less central to U.S. strategy than it imagined.
What was unsaid was the most revealing. India is an important and rising global power that claims to speak for the Global South. Yet Modi did not use this moment to criticize Trump’s war of choice — a war that was sanctioned neither by the United Nations nor by the U.S. Congress. He did not speak about its disruption of the global economy, its contribution to inflation, or its impact on working-class people everywhere. Nor did he challenge the violations of international norms involved in attacks on schools, unarmed vessels, and civilian ships.
Instead, Modi appeared to have a narrower objective: to return home with a claim that he had raised the issue of the dead Indian sailors. But he did not demand an apology. He did not demand accountability for their deaths. Trump, sensing Modi’s reticence, did not express regret or empathy for the dead Indian sailors. Indians who are outraged and angry at the deaths of those sailors will not be satisfied with this outcome.
For a meeting that was supposed to reset the relationship, this silence was striking. It revealed not only the asymmetry in the encounter but also the limits of India’s willingness to speak with moral clarity when confronted with 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-U.S. ties under Trump and the discomfort of an Indian prime minister who seemed more interested in pleasing Trump than in asserting India’s interests. For a partnership that both sides have described as consequential, the encounter was remarkably inconsequential.
