India’s Disregard for Trump’s Peace Efforts
The recent US-mediated truce between Pakistan and India ought to have been embraced as a progression toward regional peace and security in South Asia. Instead of valuing this constructive gesture, India’s media, political spheres, and diaspora have responded with a notable surge of animosity, mainly directed at former US President Donald Trump. This retaliation is both excessive and profoundly reflective of New Delhi’s increasingly aggressive diplomatic stance. India’s reaction indicates a concerning trend: a willingness to admonish any international entity that fails to adhere to its narrative, regardless of whether that entity is a longstanding strategic friend.
The Trump administration was instrumental in facilitating dialogue between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours, resulting in a symbolic yet substantial truce. Trump’s diplomatic initiative for de-escalation between India and Pakistan corresponded with his overarching vision of global stability through engagement and negotiation. Nevertheless, India’s authorities choose to disregard this initiative entirely. Rather than conveying appreciation, they initiated a barrage of criticism, with Indian media and political figures deriding and diminishing Trump’s contributions. This absence of recognition is not only diplomatically unsuitable but also reveals New Delhi’s prevailing attitude, one that seems increasingly ungrateful and hubristic in its foreign policy.
This confrontational stance towards Trump is not a unique occurrence. India’s revised diplomatic strategy appears to entail discrediting any foreign individual who strays even marginally from its established narrative. India has rebuffed Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi about remarks pertaining to the Kashmir problem. The current target is Trump, solely for promoting peace and discussion. This behavioural trend ought to elicit apprehensions among India’s allies, particularly the United States, which has provided substantial economic, military, and diplomatic assistance to New Delhi over the last twenty years.
No nation comprehends India’s disruptive diplomacy more acutely than Pakistan. Islamabad has historically been subjected to India’s clandestine operations, disinformation efforts, and regional meddling. India’s reaction to Trump’s peace initiatives is not solely concerning the ceasefire; it signifies a profound hesitance to participate in authentic discourse. Pakistan has endorsed international initiatives aimed at stabilizing the region and calls for the US and its allies to reassess their involvement with India, which has persistently exhibited opportunism and deceit in its foreign dealings.
India’s reliability as a trustworthy Western ally is diminishing due to its progressively transactional and self-interested foreign policy. While the United States and its allies supported Ukraine in response to Russia’s invasion, India refrained from denouncing the aggression at the United Nations and simultaneously enhanced its trade relations with Moscow, importing discounted Russian oil and concluding defence agreements, including the $5.43 billion S-400 missile system. Washington imposed sanctions on both Turkey and China for analogous agreements under the CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act), although India received an exemption. Ironically, rather than repaying with devotion, New Delhi reacted with hostility, instructing its media and political operators to initiate a smear campaign against Trump. This is an unusual form of diplomacy in which gratitude is supplanted by grievance, and strategic alliances are regarded as disposable.
The problem is exacerbated by India’s ongoing economic collaboration with China, despite the US’s advocacy for a strategic decoupling from Beijing. Notwithstanding border skirmishes and nationalistic discourse, India’s commerce with China exceeded $100 billion, highlighting a significant disparity between India’s actions and its language as a “like-minded” democratic ally of the West. India circumvented US-led sanctions on Iran by persisting in oil purchases under the guise of energy security. Simultaneously, it continued the Chabahar Port project with Iran, against US objections, therefore compromising attempts to economically isolate Tehran.
India’s consistent abstentions from UN resolutions denouncing Russia’s aggression in Ukraine are particularly revealing. During a period when the West pursued cohesion to maintain the rules-based international order, India opted for non-alignment instead of collaboration. This raises doubts about the extent of its dedication to collective democratic principles and global collaboration. When Trump advocated for a ceasefire in South Asia, an initiative grounded in the tenets of peace and mutual respect, India’s leadership categorically rejected it, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his associates promptly distancing themselves from a figure they previously regarded as a close ally.
This conduct demonstrates a profound ideological inflexibility and extreme nationalism that currently characterizes New Delhi’s foreign policy. India seems disinclined to embrace peace or collaboration on terms that do not align with its sovereign perspective. This mentality has resulted in an extremist orientation in its regional policy, characterized by disdain for negotiation and an embrace of force.
Notwithstanding decades of preferential treatment, encompassing military collaboration, trade advantages, and diplomatic backing in global forums, India has exhibited less willingness to act as a responsible and reciprocal partner. From Afghanistan to the Indo-Pacific and Europe, its actions have frequently compromised partner interests. The United States, specifically, must re-evaluate its strategy. Instead of depending on antiquated beliefs on common democratic norms, Washington needs to embrace a pragmatic perspective that considers New Delhi’s developing trend of disobedience and strategic unpredictability.
India’s emphatic dismissal of Trump’s peace initiatives is not merely a diplomatic affront, it serves as a warning signal. It demonstrates a deep-seated aversion to compromise, an excessively nationalistic foreign policy, and a propensity to undercut friends when aligned with domestic political agendas. As the West forges its alliances in a progressively multipolar world, it should assess India not based on its democratic promise, but rather on its actual conduct. This behaviour indicates a partner more focused on political theatrics and unilateral dominance than on achieving peace.
