A significant diplomatic development has been reported by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), which claims that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to accept at least four phone calls from US President Donald Trump in recent weeks.

This unusual occurrence has sparked discussions in diplomatic circles, as it points to growing strains in US-India relations during this period. The report interprets Modi’s refusal not only as a manifestation of deep anger but also as a demonstration of calculated caution in dealing with the American President.

The tensions seem to have evolved over a series of disputes between Washington and New Delhi. A major irritant has been Trump’s repeated public claims of mediating a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s subsequent Operation Sindoor.

Trump had asserted that his intervention was instrumental in halting border hostilities in May, but India has consistently denied third-party mediation, clarifying that the ceasefire was arranged directly between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two rival states after Pakistan initiated the conversation.

For New Delhi, Trump’s version of events was seen as a misrepresentation that undermined India’s sovereignty and long-standing policy of treating Kashmir as a bilateral issue.

Trade and economic disagreements compounded the friction. The Trump administration slapped tariffs of up to 50 percent on Indian goods—making India, alongside Brazil, the country most heavily penalised. These measures were justified by the Trump White House as both part of its “America First” protectionist trade stance and as punitive action for India’s continued purchase of Russian crude oil.

Trump’s remark in late July—dismissing India and Russia as “dead economies” that “can take themselves down together”—struck many in New Delhi as undiplomatic and insulting. In turn, Prime Minister Modi reiterated soon afterward that India was on a firm trajectory toward becoming one of the world’s top three economies, sending a clear message of confidence, resilience, and defiance.

FAZ underlined the deeper strategic reasons behind Modi’s refusal to engage on Trump’s terms. The newspaper recalled a precedent in which Trump bypassed established protocol during negotiations with Vietnam: after discussions were still ongoing with Hanoi’s leadership, Trump prematurely announced a so-called “trade deal” on social media.

Against this background, Indian officials appear to have preferred caution rather than engaging with Trump directly, wary of being placed in a similar situation where the US President could misrepresent or pre-emptively frame negotiations for his domestic political advantage.

Modi’s silence, therefore, was not only a personal statement of displeasure but also a tactical move to avoid being maneuvered into a compromising diplomatic situation.

Experts have also highlighted larger strategic implications of this apparent stand-off. Mark Frazier, co-director of the India-China Institute at the New School in New York, emphasized that Washington’s much-discussed “Indo-Pacific strategy,” which placed India at the centre of US efforts to counterbalance China, is faltering.

According to Frazier, India never intended to function as America’s junior partner in containing Beijing, preferring instead to retain strategic autonomy and pursue a balancing role between major powers. Modi’s resistance to Trump’s outreach underscores this position—India is unwilling to subordinate its economic and foreign policy interests to align exclusively with American priorities.

The reported breakdown in communication is also notable in its timing. The last recorded phone call between Modi and Trump had taken place on June 17, at Trump’s request, marking their first direct conversation following the Pahalgam attack and India’s retaliatory military operation.

Although the two leaders had been scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada, Trump’s premature departure meant the interaction did not occur. Since then, attempts to bridge the gap through phone conversations seem to have been rebuffed by New Delhi, signalling an intentional diplomatic distancing.

Overall, the episode represents a moment of heightened tension in India-US relations under Trump’s presidency. It underscores both Modi’s anger at perceived unilateralism and disrespect, and his methodical caution in avoiding situations where India’s interests could be undermined.

More broadly, it reflects India’s consistent assertion of strategic independence, its refusal to allow external mediation in matters of national security, and its rejection of pressures that compromise its economic partnerships—particularly its energy ties with Russia.

With the episode now in the public domain through a European media outlet, the handling of this strained engagement may influence both the trajectory of Washington’s “Indo-Pacific” policy and the way New Delhi shapes its high-level interactions with major global players in the uncertain era of shifting alliances.

Agencies