PM Modi made eight calls in 2025: India rejects US claim on trade deal delay

The article highlights a classic instance of diplomatic communication and dispute over trade negotiations between two significant global partners: India and the United States. It centers on India's rebuttal to a claim made by Lutnick regarding delays in a bilateral trade deal and the extent of high-level engagement between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then-US President Donald Trump.

**Background Context: A Complex Partnership**

India-US relations have evolved significantly, transforming from an 'estranged democracy' phase during the Cold War to a 'global strategic partnership' in the 21st century. This partnership encompasses defense, counter-terrorism, technology, and increasingly, trade. However, trade relations have often been marked by friction points. Under the Trump administration (2017-2021), the US adopted an 'America First' policy, leading to increased protectionism and a re-evaluation of trade agreements globally. This period saw the US withdrawing Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) benefits from India in 2019, citing India's failure to provide 'equitable and reasonable access to its markets'. Against this backdrop, both nations were actively pursuing a limited trade deal to address various market access issues, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers, aiming to boost bilateral trade which stood at approximately $146 billion in 2019-20.

**What Happened: The Diplomatic Exchange**

The crux of the matter lies in a claim made by Lutnick (identified as CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald in other reports, suggesting an informed, albeit unofficial, perspective), alleging that India had been given 'three Fridays' to conclude a trade deal and that PM Modi had to call President Trump to finalize it. This narrative suggested a degree of pressure and a last-minute scramble from the Indian side. India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), through spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, swiftly rejected this assertion. Jaiswal clarified that PM Modi and then-President Trump had engaged in phone conversations 'on eight occasions during 2025, covering different aspects of our wide-ranging partnership'. The mention of '2025' in the original article appears to be a typographical error, given the reference to 'then-US President Trump' and the context of past trade negotiations during his presidency (2017-2021). The MEA's statement aimed to correct the record, emphasize the breadth of the bilateral engagement beyond just trade, and assert the proactive nature of India's diplomacy rather than a reactive, pressured response.

**Key Stakeholders Involved**

1. **Government of India**: Primarily the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) for high-level diplomatic engagement, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for official communication and foreign policy, and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for trade negotiations. Their collective aim is to safeguard India's economic interests and diplomatic standing.

2. **United States Government**: The President (then Donald Trump) for setting trade policy and engaging in high-level diplomacy, and the US Trade Representative (USTR) for leading trade negotiations. Their objective was to secure better market access for US goods and services.

3. **Lutnick**: As an individual making the claim, likely representing business or financial circles, his statement provided an unofficial perspective that prompted India's official response.

**Why This Matters for India**

This incident is significant for several reasons. Economically, a bilateral trade deal with the US, India's largest trading partner in goods and services, holds immense potential for increasing Indian exports, attracting investments, and integrating India further into global supply chains. Politically and diplomatically, managing the narrative around such negotiations is crucial. India's prompt rebuttal demonstrates its commitment to maintaining an equitable and respectful diplomatic relationship, asserting its sovereignty in negotiations, and countering potentially misleading information. It also underscores the importance of official channels for communication in international relations, especially in an era of rapid information dissemination.

**Historical Context and Broader Themes**

The pursuit of a bilateral trade deal during the Trump administration was a continuation of efforts to deepen economic ties, albeit under the shadow of 'America First' protectionism. India-US trade relations have often seen friction over issues like tariffs on steel and aluminum, intellectual property rights, and market access for agricultural products and medical devices. The incident also highlights the broader theme of how nations navigate trade protectionism, the challenges of concluding complex trade agreements, and the role of diplomatic communication in managing perceptions and realities in international affairs. It reflects a shift from multilateral trade frameworks (like the WTO's Doha Round) to more bilateral and regional trade agreements.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, or Policies**

1. **Article 73 (Extent of executive power of the Union)**: This article states that the executive power of the Union extends to matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws. Foreign affairs and entering into treaties are subjects under the Union List (Seventh Schedule), meaning the executive, led by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has the authority to conduct foreign policy, including trade negotiations and signing international agreements.

2. **Seventh Schedule (Union List)**: Entries such as 'Foreign Affairs' (Entry 10), 'Entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign countries' (Entry 14), and 'Trade and Commerce with foreign countries' (Entry 41) directly empower the Union government to formulate and execute foreign trade policy.

3. **Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992**: This act provides the legal framework for the development and regulation of foreign trade in India, empowering the central government to make provisions for facilitating and regulating foreign trade. Trade agreements often operate within this legislative framework.

**Future Implications**

The incident underscores the ongoing complexities in India-US trade relations. While the strategic partnership continues to strengthen across various domains, trade issues remain a persistent challenge. Future administrations in both countries will likely continue to pursue trade deals, but the terms and priorities may shift. For India, this means a continued focus on diversifying its trade partners, negotiating comprehensive free trade agreements (FTAs) with other blocs (like the EU, UK, GCC), and strengthening its position in global trade. The emphasis on clear, official communication will remain paramount in managing international relations and countering misinformation.