CHENNAI: It’s hard to give a name to the trade agreement Donald Trump and Narendra Modi announced on their respective social media accounts on Monday, February 2.
If this is the Indo-US trade deal, then what is that other thing being discussed by officials of the two sides, talks for which have been going on for months? If this is but the denouement of that other, then the only moniker that would do justice to it is the ‘Trump-Modi deal,’ for it seems entirely to be the product of ‘chemistry’ between two individuals.
From the manner in which the agreement was announced, unilaterally by the American President on his personal Truth Social account and assented by the Indian Prime Minister on his official Twitter handle, without an official communique laying out the terms and bereft of a by-your-leave to the respective legislatures, the inference suggests itself that this is the result of the curious passive aggressive byplay that has been going on for months between the two leaders.
The grammar of this episode closely follows that of the India-Pakistan ‘ceasefire’ Trump claimed to have arranged on May 9 last year. Then, too, as Operation Sindoor threatened to escalate to warfare, a summary cessation was announced by Trump on social media, followed shortly by a choreographed dialogue between the two countries’ DGMOs.
This time, shortly after Trump spelt out the deal, Modi signalled his unreserved acceptance and gratitude, acknowledging the good but not the dubious parts of the deal.
Since the terms of the deal have not been spelt out in a communique, they can only be surmised from the President’s post and, on the rebound, from the PM’s tweet.
Trump has said India agreed to lower its tariffs on American goods to zero in return for which he deigned to bring his own imposts down from 25% to 18%. Further, New Delhi has pledged not to buy any more oil from Russia and instead to buy US and Venezuelan crude. Further, Trump says India has committed to buy $500 billion of American goods in energy, coal, technology, and agriculture.
The Prime Minister will be discomfited to explain each of those concessions. He will be expected to justify how a trade deal in which one side levies 18% tariffs and the other zero can be called ‘reciprocal’. Trump claims that India has agreed to lower all its tariff and non-tariff barriers in return for reduced American tariffs. Further, there is no specific commitment by the US to do away with the punitive 25% tariff slapped on for the purchase of Russian oil. It is only understood that it will be removed.
Most alarmingly, Trump’s post implies that agriculture is included in the opening up offered to America. The US Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, amplified this point that the “new US-India deal will export more American farm products to India’s massive market, lifting prices, and pumping cash into rural America.”
The PM’s response to the Trump claim did not refute or qualify this claim. The response by the PM and all the relevant ministries is allowing the US to frame the narrative, not as a deal dictated by Washington — which it is — but a one ‘requested’ by New Delhi. That is the definition of passive aggression, and suggests a metaphor often used by Trump, that India has few cards to play in this game.