By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Prof. NIIS Group of Institutions)
Donald John Trump returned to the presidency of the United States for a second term, marking him as the 47th President. The nature of the swearing-in ceremony has sparked considerable debate worldwide, particularly in India, regarding the attendees and the event’s significance. Media outlets are buzzing with speculation about who was present and who was notably absent. Among the latter, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, known to have a close relationship with Trump, was strikingly absent, leading critics and some media to voice concerns that he was ‘ignored’ by Trump’s swearing-in team.
Historically, the United States has typically invited only junior ministers or diplomats to presidential inaugurations, avoiding invitations to heads of state. However, True to his style, Trump broke from this convention, extending invitations to various heads of government and right-wing politicians, as well as some rivals like Xi Jinping of China. Given this context, Modi appeared to be a natural choice for an invitation to Capitol Hill.
Among the invited dignitaries were notable figures like Argentine Prime Minister Javier Milei, a close Trump ally; Viktor Orban, the Hungarian president; Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni; El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele; former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson; Eric Zemmour, head of France’s Nationalist Reconquête Party; and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK-Anti Immigration Reform Party. Both Australia and Japan sent their foreign ministers, while India and China were represented by their respective Vice-Presidents.
As expected, a significant number of representatives from the business community were present at Capitol Hill. Alongside well-known figures like Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk (a member of Trump’s team), several business leaders of Indian origin attended, such as Ashish Jain from Pune-based Kundan Space, Kalpesh Mehta, a Trump Towers Project partner, Pankaj Bansal of M3M Developers, and, notably, Mukesh and Nita Ambani, who flew in from India specifically for the occasion.
Why was Modi absent? Was his omission a calculated move by the Trump administration? It seems unlikely this was merely an oversight. Two potential interpretations emerge regarding Modi’s absence from this significant international event. Firstly, the Trump team may have adhered to tradition by excluding Modi as the Indian head of government. This explanation feels contradictory considering Modi’s close ties with Trump, including his public support for Trump during the 2020 presidential elections.
U.S. Ambassador Eric Garcetti has emphasized the strong personal bond between Modi and Trump, suggesting in an interview surrounding the inauguration that a one-on-one meeting might be more meaningful for Modi than being part of a large crowd. He hinted that an invitation from the White House for Modi is forthcoming.
The alternate interpretation posits that Modi was intentionally not invited to the inauguration. This viewpoint warrants closer examination, particularly given the strengthening relationship between India and the United States amid shifting geopolitical dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region. If Modi was indeed overlooked, it’s essential to identify the reasons behind this occurrence.
I believe three factors may explain this situation: India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy, New Delhi’s criticisms of American democratic assessments, and recent tensions in bilateral relations with Canada. Let’s delve into these points, as it’s crucial to reflect on Modi’s absence in light of Trump’s elevation to power.
For some time, debates have arisen over the viability of strategic autonomy—a rephrasing of non-alignment or a euphemism for multi-alignment—in an increasingly interdependent world. Nations, regardless of size, cannot afford to pursue strategic autonomy without incurring costs. Major powers, particularly Donald Trump, who thrives on delineating friends from enemies, are unlikely to accept such positions. The Trump administration has openly designated China as a strategic competitor without clearly categorizing India as an ally, unlike how Washington regards Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Canada. India’s defense procurement, aimed at bolstering deterrence under the notion of strategic autonomy, has come at a significant expense for a developing nation.
Intriguingly, smaller countries, including neighboring ones, have started to balance their ties between Beijing and New Delhi, perhaps citing strategic autonomy. Consider Nepal and Sri Lanka, traditionally India’s closest allies, and Bangladesh, which endeavors to balance its relations with India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan has entered the Chinese sphere of influence and is edging towards becoming a satellite state. Can India fault its smaller neighbors for adopting similar stances given its own engagement with the USA and erstwhile USSR, while simultaneously navigating relations with other powers like China and Russia?
In line with the concept of strategic autonomy, India has mistakenly begun to act as if it were a major power. India’s designation as the fifth-largest economy by GDP may have imbued the government with unwarranted confidence. Politicians may exaggerate this fact for political gains; however, it’s important to recognize that India has not yet established itself on the global stage. Some statistics could help dispel this myth.
In per capita GDP, India ranks 142nd globally. The growth rate, which was 7.8 percent between 2004 and 2014, has now dropped to 5.8 percent. This is insufficient for India to emerge as a developed nation and global power by 2047. While India is the fastest-growing economy, it has simply regained its position as the second fastest as China’s growth slowed after two decades of consistent rankings. In reality, the Indian economy has not soared to the extent claimed.
Regarding ties with Canada, the American government remains sensitive to its relationship with what they perceive as their backyard. Trump has even whimsically suggested that Canada should become the 51st state. With Justin Trudeau, who had tensions with Indian leadership, no longer in office, Modi may have found himself scrutinized by Trump’s administration. This scrutiny ties in with India’s repeated discrediting of U.S. agencies regarding their assessments of Indian governance and democracy. Though Trump has faced criticism from U.S. media, he has refrained from retaliating.
In conclusion, Modi’s absence from the Capitol Hill inauguration may be a minor political issue. Nonetheless, this significant event may compel Indian leadership to reevaluate the various aspects discussed here. Self-examination and the willingness to course-correct are essential for both democracy and effective governance. —INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
22 January 2025
