Internationally acclaimed singer Mary Millben has publicly voiced her support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi while expressing concern over recent remarks by the President of the United States concerning India.

Her comments followed a media interaction aboard Air Force One, during which the US President made observations about his dealings with India and Prime Minister Modi that quickly gained traction in both Indian and international discourse.

During the interaction with journalists, the US President stated that Indian actions on trade were motivated by a desire to keep him satisfied. He described Prime Minister Modi as “a very good man” and “a good guy”, while implying that New Delhi responded to his dissatisfaction because of Washington’s leverage on tariffs. He remarked that India engages in trade with the United States and that tariffs could be raised “very quickly”, suggesting a transactional approach to the bilateral economic relationship.

Mary Millben, taking to X (formerly Twitter), responded by drawing a distinction between the President’s personal regard for Modi and the policy advice he appears to be receiving. In her view, the President “in his heart respects the PM”, but she contends he is “being ill-advised on his approach to India”. By stating that she is “praying for the President on this”, Millben framed her intervention not merely as a political reaction but as a personal and moral appeal for a course correction in Washington’s stance towards New Delhi.

Millben mounted a robust defence of Prime Minister Modi’s conduct and his approach to international criticism. She argued that Modi is not required to answer every comment or threat issued by foreign leaders, including those emanating from the United States.

In her formulation, the Prime Minister’s accountability lies fundamentally with the Indian electorate rather than with external political actors or their domestic constituencies. This assertion places national sovereignty and democratic legitimacy at the centre of her argument.

Responding implicitly to both domestic critics within India and sceptical voices abroad, Millben stressed that Modi’s diplomatic style is rooted in strategic patience and long-term planning. She remarked that “the only person or persons the PM needs to make happy are the Indian people. Period.” 

This comment underlined her view that India’s leadership need not be reactive to every public statement originating from Washington, and that New Delhi’s foreign policy should remain anchored in long-term national interests rather than short-term political controversies.

By stating that “the PM understands long game diplomacy”, Millben suggested that India’s leadership is fully aware of the cyclical nature of political rhetoric and electoral dynamics in democracies such as the United States. From her perspective, it is more prudent for India to maintain composure, avoid overreaction, and focus on durable strategic objectives that transcend individual leaders and electoral cycles. This implicitly reinforces the narrative of India as a confident rising power that chooses its responses carefully.

Millben further argued that India’s leadership ought to concentrate on its internal priorities rather than being drawn into avoidable geopolitical friction. In this context, she called for a disciplined diplomatic posture that resists the temptation to elevate every foreign comment into a bilateral dispute.

Her remarks align with the broader view that major powers must manage disagreements through institutional channels and structured dialogue, instead of responding to every public provocation or media soundbite.

She also downplayed the importance of certain critical voices in the US political system who have taken a harsher line on India in recent years. According to Millben, such figures do not necessarily represent mainstream American public opinion or the broader strategic consensus in Washington. This distinction is significant, as it attempts to reassure Indian observers that not all American criticism should be read as indicative of a shift in the foundational relationship between the two democracies.

In highlighting that these critics are not fully representative of the American people, Millben indirectly underscored the depth of people-to-people ties, diaspora linkages, and shared values that underpin the India–US partnership. Her comments implied that the long-term direction of the relationship is shaped more by structural convergences and mutual interests than by the rhetoric of a few politicians or commentators operating in a polarised domestic environment.

Millben noted that leaders across the world are already closely observing political developments within the United States in the run-up to the forthcoming midterm elections. She suggested that the outcome of these elections could have considerable implications for American foreign policy and, by extension, for relationships with key partners such as India. This observation positions the present controversy within the wider context of US domestic politics, where foreign policy is often influenced by electoral calculations and shifting coalitions.

She further indicated that a change in the political balance in Washington may open the way for renewed engagement and recalibration in various bilateral relationships. In her view, this could create opportunities to reassess current approaches, reduce misunderstandings, and reinforce diplomatic channels. For India, such a phase could potentially translate into a more stable and predictable policy environment, especially on sensitive issues such as trade, technology cooperation, defence collaboration, and diaspora-related matters.

Throughout her intervention, Millben repeatedly returned to the theme of Prime Minister Modi’s core responsibility to the citizenry of India. She stressed that his primary mandate is to serve the interests of the Indian people rather than to seek the approval of any foreign government. In doing so, she echoed a wider sentiment in Indian political discourse that affirms strategic autonomy and prioritises domestic developmental goals over external pressures.

Concluding her remarks, Millben directly addressed Prime Minister Modi with a message of encouragement and support. She stated that he should continue to govern in a manner consistent with what he considers to be in “the best interest of India”, reiterating that this is the purpose for which he was elected. This closing sentiment framed her overall commentary as both a defence of Modi’s leadership and a call for steadiness in India’s response to the shifting rhetoric emanating from the United States.

Millben’s remarks serve multiple functions: they offer a critique of the current advisory ecosystem around the US President on India-related matters, they reaffirm faith in the personal rapport between the two leaders, and they underscore India’s agency in managing its external relations. At the same time, her intervention reflects a broader view within sections of American civil society that favour a strong, respectful, and strategically grounded partnership with India, despite periodic turbulence in political messaging on either side.

Based On ANI Report