Soon after US President Donald Trump’s heated exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Friday, India’s far-right and neo-liberal camps seized on the incident, linking it to India’s political dynamics. While Mr Trump’s argument with Mr Zelenskyy over the latter’s insistence on continuing the war against Russia became fodder for political memes, it also served as propaganda for opposing factions in India.
Since his US tour last month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy pragmatism has come under scrutiny. Critics argue that he failed to secure a favourable deal from Washington, instead trading India’s sovereignty for superficial praise from Mr Trump.
Supporters of Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a far-right, Hindutva-aligned party, have used the optics of the Trump-Zelenskyy exchange to lionise the Indian leader. They claim that Mr Trump’s appreciation during the US tour demonstrated Mr Modi’s strength as a statesman.
Using the optics of Mr Trump’s argument with Mr Zelenskyy, several social media influencers who work for the BJP equated the former comedian-turned-president of the Ukrainian state with the Indian National Congress (INC) party’s Member of the Parliament (MP) and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
According to them, if Mr Gandhi had visited the US, instead of Mr Modi, then he’d have been equally humiliated by Mr Trump and his Vice President James David Vance.
On the other side, India’s neo-liberal camp, especially those attached to the INC, started voicing support for Mr Zelenskyy, hyping him as an icon of resistance against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “invasion”. Many in the left camp also shared the same sympathetic views for Mr Zelenskyy.
Amid these narratives, assessing Mr Modi’s success in dealing with Mr Trump is imperative.
The Modi-Trump equation
A few days back, addressing a right-wing seminar, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni hailed the rise of the global far-right forces across countries, from Argentine President Javier Milei to herself, from Mr Modi in India to Mr Trump in the US.
Based on the assumption that the global far-right, which advocates unbridled liberalisation of the economy, extreme privatisation of public resources, cuts in welfare spending, and lowering of the taxes for the rich, has similar interests globally, many believed that these leaders will have a stronger alliance and that would make them partners in the global geopolitical landscape.
However, that oversimplification has played a major role in developing misconceptions about the modus operandi of the global far-right.
Unlike a well-organised communist movement, the far-right isn’t an internationalist movement and despite having ties between the organisations and leaders, they aren’t driven by a shared ideology, but rather by the pressing issues related to big businesses of their own countries.
In the case of India, the Opposition has accused Mr Modi of promoting the interests of Gautam Adani-owned port-to-power conglomerate Adani Enterprises and Mukesh Ambani-owned petrochemical-to-retail-to-telecom conglomerate Reliance India Limited at the cost of India’s national interests.
Similarly, Mr Milei, Ms Meloni and Mr Trump have faced similar allegations and rather than converging at a single point, their interests clash when it comes to trade and commerce.
Experts argue that the powerful far-right subjugates weaker factions. In the case of India-US relations, Washington dictates terms, knowing Mr Modi cannot refuse. India’s businesses rely heavily on the dollar, exports to the US, and American investments.
So, even after Mr Modi’s discussions with Mr Trump on several ‘strategic issues’ and on their ‘partnership’, Indian illegal immigrants are still deported en masse, shackled and cuffed, using American military cargo planes. Visas for Indian skilled migrants get harder and the corruption case filed against Mr Adani in a New York Court has not been dropped yet, despite Mr Trump doing away with the law that prohibits American firms from bribing officials of other countries to secure business contracts.
While Mr Modi’s dealing with Mr Trump, who refused to invite the prime minister to the opening of his presidency in January, has exhibited his weak foreign policy approach, the Hindutva camp has been projecting it very differently to lionise the former.
Unable to prove that Mr Modi has achieved anything significant during his last month’s US tour, the far-right has been alleging, based on their analogy, that if Mr Gandhi, the INC MP, had been the prime minister, he’d have been cowed by Mr Trump.
In stating that the far-right refuses to acknowledge that when two state heads meet, their discussions are based solely on their countries’ bilateral relations. Unlike Ukraine, India isn’t surviving on American funds. So, no American statesman can threaten or bully India and risk losing an ally against China.
However, despite having an advantage, Mr Modi has neglected to safeguard India’s interests, sidestepping tough negotiations to mitigate the high risks posed to India’s steel and metal industry by Mr Trump’s exorbitant import tariffs. He also didn’t get concrete promises of US investments in India’s manufacturing and high-tech sectors but committed to invest in the US and create jobs in that country.
While Mr Modi acquiesces to Mr Trump’s demands to prioritise American jobs, he ignores India’s plight, where unemployment has been soaring to unprecedented levels.
According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), an independent think-tank, India’s unemployment rate stands at 8.3%, significantly higher than the government’s claim of sub-6.5%.
Under such circumstances, when Mr Modi’s foreign policy decisions have faced criticism and Mr Gandhi’s performance remains a matter of speculation, equating the INC MP with Mr Zelenskyy makes no sense.
Yet, India’s far-right has chosen to do so to ensure Mr Modi is no further criticised for his foreign policy gaffe during his over-enthusiastic, self-propelled US tour in February.
Neo-liberals hurt by Trump’s argument with Zelenskyy
The neo-liberal camp, including a large section of the INC and other similar parties, has been shedding tears for Ukraine once again after visuals of Mr Trump’s argument with Mr Zelenskyy became public. For them, Mr Trump has betrayed Ukraine and has abandoned it.
In celebrating Mr Zelenskyy, the man who has been accused of holding on to power illegally by suspending elections in his country and running an autocratic government, the neo-liberal camp has been endorsing the neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine whose interests the comedian-turned-politician represents, Russian media RT has alleged.
For years, the neo-liberals of India and the sub-continent, who align with the US Democrats, have been supportive of the US neo-cons and its deep state, critics allege. The BJP alleges that the neo-liberals had been major beneficiaries of George Soros-owned Open Foundation’s grants.
Driven by Washington’s broader agenda, these political forces have made Russophobia and Sinophobia inalienable parts of their agenda, critics, including those on the left, allege. Hence, they have remained supportive of the US’s aggressive posture in the South China Sea, in the Balkans and in the East Asian war theatre.
For this reason, Mr Zelenskyy, whom the western mainstream media has been projecting as a heroic figure since 2022, has been a role model for the neo-liberals of India, including those in the INC.
To oppose Mr Modi’s foreign policy, which had, for some time, balanced between Russia and the US-led collective West, the INC and other neo-liberal forces take a pro-western stance, which further isolates them from the anti-war camp as well as those who oppose ‘imperialistic’ globalists.
Now, by supporting Mr Zelenskyy, following the Oval Office episode, the neo-liberals of India have again isolated themselves and exposed their pro-war, pro-globalist and pro-Nazi orientation, which can later turn out to be a major roadblock on their political trajectory.
What could be India’s stance on the Trump-Zelenskyy divide?
Rather than comparing the Indian prime minister with the Ukrainian leader following Mr Trump’s argument with Mr Zelenskyy, the Indian side should have highlighted that the resolution to the Ukraine conflict can come only if the US-led collective West stops instigating Russia and ends its campaigns to isolate Russia, which didn’t harm the Russian economy but did cause inflation and supply chain disruptions for the rest of the world.
Mr Modi had earlier highlighted that India’s stance on Russia-Ukraine conflict is not of neutrality but of promoting peace. This should’ve been asserted by India’s far-right to earn credibility rather than comparing the country’s leader with someone who has lost credibility all over the world, according to the latest reports on western mainstream media.
India’s non-aligned diplomacy makes it imperative for it to align more with the Global South than the Global North, especially using multipolar platforms like BRICS or Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the bodies that Mr Trump vehemently opposes.
Moreover, India should learn from Mr Trump’s argument with Mr Zelenskyy. It showcases that relying on the West or acting as its pawn against one’s neighbour won’t always pay high dividends but such acts can push a country to the brink of total collapse.
As policy hawks in New Delhi, enamoured by Western validation, continue to promote enmity with China and other neighbours and advocate stronger unity with the US and its allies, it’s time for India to realise that such acts can end up as major geopolitical catastrophes.
