Few American presidents have displayed Donald Trump’s unsentimental approach to foreign relations. His motto, “America First,” is not mere rhetoric but a governing principle, enforced without regard to sentimentality or friendships. The latest testament to this resolve was the unceremonious deportation of 104 Indian nationals, transported in shackles aboard a US military aircraft, sparking predictable outrage in India. The images of these hapless individuals, their limbs bound for a 40-hour flight, have ignited a political firestorm in Delhi, testing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s diplomatic finesse.
The opposition has seized on the episode to question Modi’s oft-repeated claim that India is a ‘Vishwaguru’ - a global leader worthy of respect. The scenes of Indian deportees, treated as hardened criminals, starkly contrast with the narrative of an ascendant India forging strong ties with the West. Modi, who has carefully cultivated an image of diplomatic prowess, finds himself in a quandary: to criticize Trump risks straining ties with a key strategic partner, yet silence only deepens domestic criticism.
India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, has attempted to quell the storm, arguing that the government’s response adheres to international norms. But this bureaucratic defence has failed to appease critics who are asking pointed questions on why Indian deportees were treated like dangerous criminals?
Yet, for all the indignation in India, Trump’s actions are neither surprising nor unprecedented. Immigration enforcement has been central to his political brand, and he has demonstrated a ruthless willingness to act against violators of American law, regardless of their country of origin. India, often a beneficiary of America’s goodwill, is no exception. Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration has spared no one - not even those from nations with whom he shares warm relations. The Indian deportees, who entered the US illegally via the perilous ‘dunki’ route through Latin America, were simply the latest casualties of his unyielding immigration policy.
That said, the methods employed by US authorities, however, do raise uncomfortable questions. Handcuffing and shackling individuals for an entire flight smacks of excessive force. Were these Indian deportees, many of whom were simply economic migrants, so great a threat that such restraints were necessary? The United States often touts its commitment to human rights and dignity. But its treatment of these deportees suggests a stark gap between principle and practice.
For Modi, this incident underscores the limitations of personal diplomacy. His rapport with Trump, evident in their joint rallies and mutual admiration, has not shielded India from Washington’s hard-nosed policies. Despite the grand spectacle of ‘Howdy Modi’ and ‘Namaste Trump,’ the US has shown that its national interest takes precedence over camaraderie. In that sense, the deportations are a reality check for India’s foreign policy establishment. Modi, despite the domestic backlash, may have little choice but to accept this as the cost of doing business with Washington.
Comments