The victory of Donald Trump was not predictable. But it was not to be a surprise either. All poll surveys had indicated a tight race and any tight race by definition means that it equally throws both possibilities.
The suspense is now over and the Republican Trump has defeated his Democratic rival Kamala Harris by convincingly winning both the electoral votes (295:226) and the popular votes (72,560,841:67,878,826).
As expected, the Indian right is exuberant at the outcome. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the president-elect Trump have a record of bonhomie which was displayed most dramatically in Texas and Gujarat only a few years ago. Politically speaking, since both leaders are intrinsically transactional it is likely that the India-US relationship will remain on even keel unless there is any major goof up by either side.
But there is a philosophical question which stems from human experience: familiarity breeds contempt. Both are pathologically anti-immigrant but one’s illegal immigrant is other’s innocent and desperate job-seeker. The shared anti-Muslim sentiment of Trump and Modi may find them on the same plank but insofar as illegal immigrants are concerned for Modi they are Bangladeshi Muslims but for Trump they may belong to any religion or any region, who may as well include Hindus from India, that too from Modi’s home state, Gujarat, which Modi advertises as India’s most happening state, the so-called ‘Gujarat model’.
Now that Trump is once again elected with a huge baggage of promises to the Americans Narendra Modi will have to settle many contentious matters with him such as mutual tariff rates, technology transfer questions, India’s BRICS ambitions which are in clear conflict with those of America, the respective roles of the two nations in the fiercely boiling Middle Eastern cauldron, the future of dollar as the most dominant currency, etc. It may be instructive, therefore, to recall how Modi dealt with Trump during the latter’s first stint.
When Trump was sworn in as the president of America for the first time in 2017, Modi had already been in power for three years. In 2019, he won the general election once again with a bigger margin. It was during those days that an American colleague had asked me how I would compare the two leaders. His idea was to sense their relative strengths and weaknesses for one led the world’s ‘greatest’ democracy while the other, the world’s largest democracy.
In 2024, five years later, that 2019 note may make an interesting read.
Similarities
Least foreign policy experience yet intense involvement in foreign affairs once in power
When in power, Trump made major policy moves like withdrawal from TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), diluting the NAFTA, ridiculing NATO as “obsolete”, hostility to the UN system (threatening to cut the US financial commitment by 40%), expanding US nuclear capability to the extent of thinking of “limited” nuclear wars and in the process showing less interest in upholding the NPT principles, patching up with Russia, not enthused about globalisation, rather going isolationist, and disinterest in environmental issues. For him, ‘America first’ is the motto, one achieved by revamping hyper-nationalism.
Modi, in a foreign policy blitzkrieg, had invited all South Asian heads to his inaugural ceremony. He has undertaken a massive number of foreign visits inviting such popular jokes as “India’s multinational (bahu rashtriya) prime minister”, taken up more belligerent moves against Pakistan exemplified by “surgical strikes”, the “Make in India” slogan, high profile photo-ops with foreign heads, made all out efforts to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, professed a greater commitment to international environmental decisions, and taken the nationalism question to feverish pitches.
Popular base
Both pose as if they have majority support which is not true. Trump got three million popular votes less than his opponent Hilary Clinton in 2016, but because of the electoral college system, he got more electoral votes. Modi’s party BJP got 31% votes in 2014 nationally but because of the first-past-the-post system in India’s parliamentary democracy, BJP singlehandedly got absolute majority in the parliament.
Direct communication with the masses
Both are least bothered about the press and the liberal voices. This was evident during Trump’s election campaign the first time around. Ironically, however, he took full advantage of the popular polls which suggested that 85% Americans did not trust the national press and 90%, the US Congress. His demagoguery had outsmarted Hillary Clinton by raking up less important issues, thereby deflecting the debates away from larger national questions.
In the case of Modi he established direct communication with the masses by his forceful speeches made in record number of rallies. Like Trump, Modi too has disregard for the press and the liberal opinion. He has not so far addressed any press conference nor given any serious interview to any journalist barring known Modi-supporting news outlets who are not expected to ask any uncomfortable or follow-up questions to the prime minister.
Instant communication
Both Trump and Modi made use of their Twitter – now X – handles to make policy announcements. For Trump it was in sharp contrast to the Chinese style where every word is a well thought out one. So far as Modi’s Twitter diplomacy is concerned it used to be a source of huge embarrassment of the concerned minister as was the case with external affairs minister, the late Sushma Swaraj. She was not aware that President Barack Obama had been invited to be the chief guest at India’s Independence Day celebrations in 2015 till it appeared in newspapers the next day, it is said.
Dissimilarities
- Trump’s victory in 2016 was questioned from day one through popular demonstrations but Modi’s personal popularity seems to remain in place. Even his grossly short-sighted demonetisation policy has not evoked any popular umbrage.
- Trump has a superrich background. Modi’s background is very modest, he claims that he sold tea in his youth.
- There was vacillation in the Republican Party as to whether to nominate Trump for the presidential race. Modi was the unanimous choice of the BJP.
- Because of the difference in the two national systems, Trump can have an altogether new bureaucracy (leave alone his cabinet) filled with his own people. Modi has a permanent bureaucracy though he can as well choose his officers. This is evident in the choice of India’s Foreign Secretary (S. Jaishankar). He has even been given an extension of one year beyond the end of his tenure. Modi’s virtual neglect of the advice of external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj speaks of how he wants to run the foreign office his own way, at the cost of the institutional mechanism.
- Trump’s tenure is for four more years, as the US constitution limits presidents to two four-year terms. For Modi it can go up to 10, 15 or even more.
Postscript
In 2017, first year of Trump’s first presidency, when I was editor of the ICWA journal India Quarterly, published by Sage, I invited home for dinner a senior officer from the Sage headquarters in California. She visited us along with a middle-aged American. His story was interesting. He found the Trump presidency so unbearable that he was staying away from America by traveling all over the world. He would return to America only after Trump’s tenure was over.
The irony is that Trump is once again in power. I have no idea about his plans now. Who knows he may have voted for Trump this time. If not, India may not be a bad choice for a dollar is selling now for Rs 84+.
Partha S. Ghosh is a retired JNU professor.