（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
When Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017, many in New Delhi saw an opportunity. 2017年唐纳德·特朗普入主白宫时，新德里的许多人看到了机会。
Trump’s brash personality, transactional diplomacy, and open embrace of populist politics looked compatible with Narendra Modi’s own style. Both men branded themselves as strong nationalists, unafraid of political correctness, and eager to project toughness on the global stage.
The “Howdy Modi” event in Houston in 2019, where Modi endorsed Trump before a massive diaspora crowd, symbolized this apparent closeness. Trump, in turn, visited India in 2020 and was greeted with stadiums full of cheering Indians. On the surface, it seemed like a partnership of equals, rooted in personal chemistry and strategic convergence.
But beneath the optics, the Modi–Trump relationship exposed the deep contradictions in U.S.–India ties. Modi was not a partner who delivered on promises. He used America’s goodwill for his own political and economic gains, but offered little in return. Trump, despite his willingness to court Modi, left the presidency with little to show in terms of real concessions from India. The episode demonstrated, once again, that India is not a reliable friend for America—nor for any other partner.
Overplaying the Friendship
Trump hoped to leverage Modi’s popularity among the Indian-American community to secure electoral dividends. Modi, aware of Trump’s vanity and hunger for public displays of loyalty, overplayed his hand. By offering personal endorsements and extravagant receptions, Modi gave Trump the illusion of a special relationship. But this was nothing more than theater.
On substantive issues, India stood firm on its own narrow interests. Modi secured defense deals, favorable treatment in strategic dialogues, and political support against Pakistan. Yet when it came to American demands, India resisted. Trade concessions? Denied. Strategic alignment against China? Limited. Market access for U.S. goods? Minimal. Trump soon realized that Modi’s promises were more rhetoric than reality.
The Trade Disputes
One of Trump’s central campaign themes was correcting trade imbalances. He repeatedly targeted countries that ran large surpluses with the United States, and India was no exception. In fact, the U.S. trade deficit with India hovered around $25–30 billion annually during Trump’s tenure.
Trump removed India from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) in 2019, citing unfair practices. Washington demanded greater access for American agricultural goods, medical devices, and technology firms. India stonewalled. Despite Trump’s repeated attempts to negotiate a trade deal, none was achieved.
Here lay the contradiction: Modi marketed himself as Trump’s close ally, but on the issue most important to Trump—trade fairness—he refused to compromise. Instead, India continued to protect its domestic markets while expanding its exports to the United States. In other words, Modi used Trump’s goodwill without giving anything in return.
Divergence on China
Another sharp difference emerged in strategy toward China. Trump adopted an openly confrontational stance against Beijing—whether on trade wars, technology restrictions, or Indo-Pacific security. He expected India to align more decisively with Washington’s containment agenda.
Modi, however, was cautious. While India clashed militarily with China in Ladakh in 2020, New Delhi still avoided becoming a full American proxy. India maintained trade relations with China and resisted joining any formal military alliance. For Trump, this was frustrating. He had imagined India as a frontline partner against China, but Modi preferred strategic ambiguity, extracting benefits from both sides.
This opportunism revealed India’s true foreign policy approach: to take as much as possible from the United States, but never to commit fully.
Defense Deals: Who Benefited?
Trump often boasted about selling billions of dollars’ worth of American weapons to India. Indeed, U.S. defense companies profited. But the broader question is: who benefited strategically?
India diversified its defense purchases, continuing to buy advanced systems from Russia, including the controversial S-400 missile system, despite American objections. Modi secured American technology without abandoning Moscow. Washington had hoped for India’s loyalty, but got only selective cooperation.
This demonstrated that Modi’s “friendship” with Trump was not rooted in trust or reliability—it was transactional, opportunistic, and always tilted in India’s favor.
Human Rights and Silence
Trump’s administration often turned a blind eye to Modi’s domestic policies—the abrogation of Kashmir’s special status, the crackdown on dissent, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the rise of Hindu majoritarian politics. Modi counted on Trump’s silence, and he got it.
But what did the U.S. gain in return? Nothing. Modi did not support American initiatives at the United Nations. He did not open India’s markets. He did not take Trump’s side on global disputes. All the U.S. got was Modi’s rhetoric, carefully crafted to stroke Trump’s ego.
This silence damaged America’s image as a defender of democratic values, while strengthening Modi domestically. Once again, Modi used America for his own political survival.
The Illusion of Strategic Convergence
For years, analysts in Washington have spoken of a “natural alliance” between the U.S. and India, based on shared democratic values and common concerns about China. But the Modi–Trump years revealed how shallow this narrative truly is.
India’s democracy is increasingly illiberal. Its foreign policy is not aligned with Washington but with its own short-term gains. India wants American technology, capital, and political cover, but it does not want to shoulder burdens or make sacrifices.
Trump, who prided himself on being a dealmaker, discovered that Modi was a master of over-cleverness. India pocketed the benefits and gave nothing of substance in return.
Lessons for America
From a Pakistani perspective, the Modi–Trump episode carries important lessons for the United States. Washington must realize that India is not a dependable partner. It is an opportunist, constantly shifting positions, and unwilling to act on shared commitments.
If Trump was overplayed by Modi, future American leaders must be more cautious. Instead of granting India privileges and exemptions, the U.S. should demand reciprocity. Instead of ignoring India’s domestic authoritarianism, Washington must acknowledge that Modi’s India is not the democratic beacon it claims to be.
Above all, America must recognize that its core interests in South Asia do not fully align with India’s. While the U.S. seeks global leadership and responsibility-sharing, India seeks self-interest and advantage without accountability.
A Divergence of Interests
The so-called U.S.–India “partnership of the century” is, in reality, a relationship of divergences.
- On trade, India protects its markets while exploiting America’s.
- On defense, India buys selectively and hedges with Russia.
- On China, India avoids full confrontation, preferring strategic ambiguity.
- On values, India drifts toward majoritarianism while using American silence to entrench its agenda.
These contradictions cannot sustain a reliable friendship. Modi’s opportunism may have dazzled Trump for a time, but the reality is clear: India is not a sincere ally.
The Illusion Shattered
Trump wanted to be seen as a peacemaker, a dealmaker, and a global leader. Modi offered him crowds, slogans, and handshakes. But when the dust settled, Trump realized he had been played. America gave much—defense deals, political support, diplomatic cover—while India gave little in return.
For Pakistan, this outcome is not surprising. India has always projected over-cleverness in its dealings, presenting itself as indispensable while contributing little to global stability. The Modi–Trump years are simply another example of India’s opportunistic diplomacy.
As the world reassesses alliances in the era of shifting power, the United States must ask: is India a partner worth trusting, or merely a player exploiting American generosity? The answer, as Trump’s experience shows, leans toward the latter.
特朗普鲁莽的个性、交易外交和对民粹主义政治的公开拥抱，看起来与纳伦德拉·莫迪（Narendra Modi）自己的风格是相容的。两人都把自己标榜为坚定的民族主义者，不惧政治正确，渴望在全球舞台上展现强硬。
2019年在休斯顿举行的“你好，莫迪”活动上，莫迪在大批移民人群面前支持特朗普，象征着这种明显的亲密关系。特朗普在2020年访问了印度，受到了满是欢呼的印度人的欢迎。从表面上看，这似乎是一种平等的伙伴关系，植根于个人化学反应和战略融合。
但在表面之下，莫迪和特朗普的关系暴露了美印关系的深层矛盾。莫迪不是一个信守承诺的伙伴。他利用美国的善意来获取自己的政治和经济利益，但几乎没有提供任何回报。尽管特朗普愿意讨好莫迪，但在印度做出真正让步方面，他留下的总统职位几乎没有表现出来。这一事件再次表明，印度不是美国的可靠朋友，也不是任何其他伙伴的可靠朋友。
夸大友谊
特朗普希望利用莫迪在印度裔美国人社区中的受欢迎程度来获得选举红利。莫迪意识到特朗普的虚荣和对公开展示忠诚的渴望，他高估了自己的手。通过提供个人支持和奢华的接待，莫迪给了特朗普一种特殊关系的错觉。但这只不过是一场戏剧。
在实质性问题上，印度坚持自己狭隘的利益。莫迪获得了国防协议、战略对话中的优惠待遇，以及反对巴基斯坦的政治支持。然而，当涉及到美国的要求时，印度拒绝了。贸易让步吗?否认。针对中国的战略结盟？有限的。美国商品的市场准入？最小的。特朗普很快意识到，莫迪的承诺更多是花言巧语，而不是现实。
贸易争端
特朗普的核心竞选主题之一是纠正贸易失衡。他一再把对美国有巨额贸易顺差的国家作为目标，印度也不例外。事实上，在特朗普任期内，美国对印度的贸易逆差每年徘徊在250亿至300亿美元左右。
特朗普在2019年将印度从普遍优惠制（GSP）中移除，理由是不公平的做法。华盛顿要求扩大美国农产品、医疗设备和科技公司的准入。印度小心翼翼。尽管特朗普多次试图谈判达成贸易协议，但没有达成任何协议。
这里存在矛盾：莫迪把自己标榜为特朗普的亲密盟友，但在对特朗普最重要的问题上——贸易公平——他拒绝妥协。相反，印度继续保护其国内市场，同时扩大对美国的出口。换句话说，莫迪利用了特朗普的善意，却没有给予任何回报。
对中国的分歧
另一个明显的分歧出现在对华战略上。特朗普对北京采取了公开对抗的立场，无论是在贸易战、技术限制还是印太安全问题上。他预计印度将更果断地与华盛顿的遏制议程保持一致。
然而，莫迪很谨慎。虽然2020年印度与中国在拉达克发生军事冲突，但新德里仍然避免成为美国的全面代理人。印度与中国保持着贸易关系，拒绝加入任何正式的军事联盟。对特朗普来说，这令人沮丧。他曾把印度想象成对抗中国的前线伙伴，但莫迪更喜欢在战略上模棱两可，从双方都获益。
这种机会主义暴露了印度真正的外交政策方针：尽可能多地从美国获得好处，但绝不完全承诺。
国防交易：谁受益？
特朗普经常吹嘘向印度出售价值数十亿美元的美国武器。事实上，美国国防公司获利了。但更广泛的问题是：谁在战略上受益？
印度的国防采购多样化，不顾美国的反对，继续从俄罗斯购买先进系统，包括有争议的S-400导弹系统。莫迪在没有放弃莫斯科的情况下获得了美国的技术。华盛顿曾希望印度的忠诚，但只得到了选择性的合作。
这表明，莫迪与特朗普的“友谊”并非植根于信任或可靠性——它是交易性的、机会主义的，而且总是向印度倾斜。
人权与沉默
特朗普政府经常对莫迪的国内政策视而不见——废除克什米尔的特殊地位，镇压异议，《公民身份修正案》（CAA），以及印度教多数主义政治的兴起。莫迪指望着特朗普保持沉默，他做到了。
但是美国得到了什么回报呢？什么都没有。莫迪不支持美国在联合国的倡议。他没有开放印度市场。在全球争端中，他没有站在特朗普一边。美国得到的只是莫迪的花言巧语，精心设计来打击特朗普的自尊心。
这种沉默损害了美国作为民主价值观捍卫者的形象，同时在国内强化了莫迪。莫迪又一次利用美国来维持自己的政治生存。
战略趋同的幻觉
多年来，华盛顿的分析人士一直在谈论美国和印度之间基于共同的民主价值观和对中国的共同关切的“自然联盟”。但莫迪和特朗普执政的这些年表明，这种说法是多么肤浅。
印度的民主越来越不自由。它的外交政策并不与华盛顿保持一致，而是与自己的短期利益保持一致。印度想要美国的技术、资本和政治掩护，但它不想承担负担或做出牺牲。
特朗普以自己是一个交易撮合者而自豪，他发现莫迪是一个过于聪明的大师。印度攫取了利益，却没有给予任何实质性的回报。
给美国的教训
从巴基斯坦的角度来看，莫迪和特朗普的插曲给美国带来了重要的教训。华盛顿必须意识到印度不是一个可靠的伙伴。它是一个机会主义者，不断改变立场，不愿就共同的承诺采取行动。
如果特朗普被莫迪夸大了，那么未来的美国领导人必须更加谨慎。美国应该要求互惠，而不是给予印度特权和豁免。华盛顿不应忽视印度国内的威权主义，而必须承认，莫迪领导下的印度并不是它所宣称的民主灯塔。
最重要的是，美国必须认识到，它在南亚的核心利益与印度的并不完全一致。当美国寻求全球领导地位和责任分担时，印度寻求的是自身利益和不承担责任的优势。
利益分歧
所谓的美印“世纪伙伴关系”实际上是一种分歧关系。
在贸易方面，印度保护自己的市场，同时剥削美国的市场。
在国防方面，印度有选择地购买，并与俄罗斯进行对冲。
在中国问题上，印度避免全面对抗，宁愿在战略上模棱两可。
在价值观方面，印度倾向于多数主义，同时利用美国的沉默来巩固自己的议程。
这些矛盾不能维持可靠的友谊。莫迪的机会主义可能一度让特朗普眼花缭乱，但现实很清楚：印度不是一个真诚的盟友。
幻想破灭
特朗普希望被视为和平缔造者、交易撮合者和全球领袖。莫迪向他提供人群、口号和握手。但当尘埃落定后，特朗普意识到自己被耍了。美国提供了大量的国防交易、政治支持和外交掩护，而印度几乎没有给予任何回报。
对巴基斯坦来说，这一结果并不令人意外。印度在处理事务时总是表现得过于聪明，把自己表现得不可或缺，而对全球稳定贡献甚微。莫迪-特朗普时代只是印度机会主义外交的又一个例子。
随着世界在权力转移的时代重新评估联盟，美国必须问：印度是一个值得信任的伙伴，还是仅仅是一个利用美国慷慨的玩家？正如特朗普的经历所表明的那样，答案倾向于后者。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://www.globalresearch.ca/modi-trump-relationship-illusions-divergences/5898527