“This shows how inept US diplomacy has become, where they can actually communicate total nonsense to the court,” said Kanwal Sibal, referring to the Trump administration’s claim that the ceasefire was brokered by offering India and Pakistan access to US trade. “We already have over $200 billion of trade with the United States… So not to take all this seriously, because it has no basis at all.”
Both diplomats agreed that India must use its growing economic weight to secure favourable terms, and not let Washington’s political chaos dictate the narrative. Singh said, “The foreign secretary is in Washington at the moment. He should take it up. We can’t continue with business as usual… it’s causing domestic issues in India.”Sibal pointed out that the ongoing talks for a limited trade agreement are progressing, and there’s no reason to derail them unless the US introduces unreasonable conditions. “We should continue down the path that we are following and try to have some kind of an agreement… unless, of course, the basis of the talks is completely eroded by the American side.”
Singh warned that while the Trump tariffs may be legally dead for now, the broader policy approach may return. “Trump is convinced that tariffs are a very effective weapon… whether it’s security-related issues or trade or anything else,” he said. He added that Trump’s thinking has always been transactional and unpredictable, citing past remarks that have linked trade to unrelated issues like fentanyl or immigration.
With India’s trade position much stronger than Pakistan’s, both diplomats questioned the logic of tying regional security outcomes to bilateral commerce. “India’s trade with US is around $200 billion; Pakistan’s trade is $5-6 billion. So, there’s no comparison at all,” Singh noted.
They also cautioned that India’s cautious diplomacy—designed to avoid openly confronting the US—could be misread as weakness. “We sort of reject [Trump’s claims], but… we’ve not openly said, ‘Please don’t use this,’” Singh said.
Sibal, however, urged restraint in responding too aggressively to Trump’s statements. “There’s no point in taking him head-on. Just ignore him.”
Calling Trump’s talk about India agreeing to zero tariffs “nonsense,” Sibal emphasised that any future trade agreement must be balanced. “It has to be a win-win deal. So why stop this process midway just because of a court ruling?”
Verbatim Excerpt:
Q: Trump is known to be a loose cannon. He’s known to make comments which surprise, which shock, which bring in a sense of awe, but now to be making those statements in a formal court of law in the United States in diplomatic terms, knowing that this comes at the cost of India’s stated position repeatedly after Operation Sindoor, in diplomatic terms, what does this translate into?
Sibal: This shows how inept US diplomacy has become, where they can actually communicate total nonsense to the court. I mean, saying that the ceasefire has been based on giving access to India and Pakistan to US trade, what kind of nonsense is this? We already have over $200 billion of trade with the United States. Are they going to block that because of what happened between India and Pakistan? And how would they block that? They export to us, we export to them. We already have agreed on the broad parameters of a multi-sector trade agreement which we are negotiating. This has been officially announced even by the US Vice President, who was here. Our commerce minister was in the United States fairly recently; the negotiations are going on. I have inquired with some people in power, and they say that there is absolutely no impact of what Trump has been talking about, trade in the context of the India Pakistan conflict, on actual discussions that are going on, which are proceeding pretty smoothly.
So, they’re just clutching at straws and bringing up a security issue, a ceasefire issue, to the US court, as if it has to decide on these matters. It’s almost ridiculous. And moreover, the Government of India at various levels has categorically said that the trade issue was never mentioned. Remember, it was JD Vance who spoke to the Prime Minister, and Rubio spoke to our Foreign Minister, and it has been made very clear from our side that there was no reference to trade at all. So, not to take all this seriously, because it has no basis at all.
Q: Like Ambassador Sibal pointed out, there doesn’t appear to be any basis. That appears to have been a sentiment that even the US court agrees with, rejecting that argument and, in doing so, striking down the Trump tariffs as well. Given that we are operating now in the domain of the Trump era, the tariff era, give us a sense. What does this change do, with the US court rejecting the argument about the India Pakistan ceasefire and also striking down the Trump tariffs? What does that do for trade negotiations, especially with countries like India, who, at least for now, are not seeing eye to eye with the US?
Singh: This is an important US tribunal, a tribunal on international trade. And what they have said is the 1979 law that the Trump administration is using was meant really for sanctions against countries or other trade-related issues, but certainly not tariffs. So, what the Trump administration has done is they’ve taken that law and assumed the power to impose tariffs arbitrarily. And it happens almost like he goes to sleep with the tariffs on China at level X, he wakes up the next morning and lowers them. They keep going up and down. The markets keep going up and down. So, there is no rationale to it.
But I think what they’re doing is he’s convinced that tariffs are a very, very effective weapon in his hands to influence other countries and therefore set right what he thinks are distortions in multilateral trade. Now they’ve combined it, in the case of India, with security issues. So, it’s more a question of thinking that, for them, tariffs are the main weapon, and so wherever they’re wielding it, they think it’s useful, even where the India-Pakistan standoff is concerned. So, I think it’s mistaken.
And secondly, as Ambassador Sibal said, trade is around $200 billion; Pakistan’s trade is $5-6 billion. So, there’s no comparison at all. What is it they propose doing for Pakistan that can help their trade or harm their trade? Maybe they can harm their trade, but certainly can’t help them much.
But this is not the first time. Even Trump, standing next to the South African President, again said it. And before that, he’s also said it. So, it’s somewhere stuck in his head. I don’t think it’s a one-off that they went to a court and said it, but somewhere in his mind, there is this use of tariffs as a weapon to influence any country to do whatever he wants it to do, whether it’s security-related issues or trade or anything else, visas or fentanyl, as in the case of Canada and Mexico. Canada doesn’t have a trade imbalance with America, but they’re saying, “No, you are exporting fentanyl and you’re letting people come in,” which is not based on facts. With Mexico, again, it’s fentanyl and people coming through.
So, the issues vary. It’s not a single issue. Issues vary from country to country, and tariffs are the one weapon that Trump is wielding. So, I think we can just ignore what he’s saying. But the problem is that the Indian government has shown a certain reluctance to openly confront the US administration. I think there is a hope that somehow the trade deal with America will come through. The initial kind of interim trade deal is expected very soon.
I think we may be disappointed, because with Trump, nothing can be taken for granted. Even what is on the table, he’ll just say, “No, it is not acceptable. It’s not something which meets all my conditions.” But that puts the government on the back foot, because they have not openly confronted the Americans on this argument. We do it indirectly, we sort of reject it, but every time they’ve raised it, we’ve not openly said, “Please don’t use this. This has nothing to do with it.” And I think that’s what makes them perpetuate and go on with it.
Q: When you say that India has not done enough as a show of strength in terms of rebutting some of these claims that are made repeatedly by President Trump, what more is required at this stage in terms of taking a substantial position that manifests not just to Indians, but also to the world at large, that, look, this is a position that we clearly refute, that this is not something that transpired, this is not a narrative that India will stand by?
Singh: The foreign secretary is in Washington at the moment. He should take it up. He is going to discuss critical technologies and so on and so forth. I think before we behave as business as usual, there has to be some intervention on his part. And tell the Americans, “Please stop it.”
We can’t continue with business as usual; it’s causing domestic issues in India. And you’ve got seven delegations which are going all over the world. Even they’ll be wondering, even countries they are engaging with will be wondering what’s happening, because when you’re explaining, you are trying to bring the focus back on Pakistani terrorism, Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, and Trump goes on shifting it, creating equivalence between India and Pakistan, and introducing trade into it, and recreating a hyphenation which doesn’t help our arguments abroad.
Q: All of this is happening in the midst of India negotiating a trade deal with the United States. There was an understanding that perhaps before the end of 2025 it could yield some returns. The question I want to ask you is: if we were to continue along this current trajectory, with the overarching tariffs that we had seen, India was seen to be required to make concessions. So, whether that’s bourbon whisky from Tennessee, whether that’s Harley Davidson bikes, we were required to make those concessions. Now, with the tariffs having gone, is this a trade deal? Is this a lever that perhaps the Indian administration can now use to send a message to the United States? There are sticky points, whether that’s defence buys, whether that’s IP protection, whether that’s MSPs that we provide to our local crops here in India. So, there are sticky points. Can they now be used as levers, perhaps in conveying the Indian message?
Sibal: I think we should continue down the path that we are following and try to have some kind of an agreement, an interim agreement, the first phase of a larger trade agreement, by autumn this year, as had been planned when Prime Minister Modi went to the United States in February. As I mentioned earlier, my understanding is that those talks are going on well enough, and we should continue unless, of course, the basis of the talks is completely eroded by the American side and they want something else altogether, or they introduce issues which are not acceptable to us. So far, that is not happening.
The point is that if we want to increase the levels of our trade to $500 billion with the United States by 2030, then some changes in our tariff regime would also be required, against which we should have more access to the United States in terms of technology, investment, or what have you. It has to be a win-win deal. So why stop this process midway just because of a court ruling? In the US system, you don’t know which way the wind will blow and what may happen next. And as you said, this matter is going to go to the Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide. So why anticipate anything? Unless, as I said, the Americans are putting up roadblocks that we find totally unacceptable. There’s a much larger relationship with the United States that we need to preserve, and it goes beyond tariffs.
Unfortunately, Trump is absolutely focused on tariffs at the cost of any sense of real politics. This is a big flaw in India-US relations today, because you have a president who cannot think beyond tariffs, who makes loose statements, who makes unsubstantiated statements, and even on Indian trade figures with the United States, he is totally ill-informed. He says whatever comes to his mind.
Lutnick is not particularly well-versed in these matters either. I saw the statements he was making at the Raisina Dialogue, where they were putting enormous pressure on us, on agriculture, and he was pretty demanding in that regard. It’s not going to happen. And then Trump says that India has agreed to zero tariffs. Are we going to agree to zero tariffs? What nonsense is this?
And coming back to all this talk about the ceasefire being under jeopardy because he had promised trade, what has he promised to India? Nothing. And why should we disregard what our leaders have said repeatedly? You mentioned just now that we should be clearer. How much more can we be clear? So, why go on and on and get into a battle with Trump, who’s totally unpredictable, who always wants to win, who’s very impulsive and unpredictable? Why rattle him unnecessarily? We’ve said what we have said, and there’s no point in taking him head-on. Just ignore him.
Watch the accompanying video for the entire discussion.