In US President Donald Trump’s second term, he has imposed several sanctions against India, starting from 50% tariffs on Indian exports for importing oil from Russia and the latest one of a massive USD 100,000 fee for new H1-B applications. Considering that Indians get 70% of new H1-B visas, it will affect professionals from India the most. In a candid conversation with Sidharth Bhatia, as part of The Wire Talks podcast, Manoj Joshi, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, talks about Trump’s claims and how the H1-B chapter is not over yet.Below is the full text of the conversation, transcribed by Maryam Seraj, an editorial intern at The Wire. It has been edited for readability and brevity.Sidharth Bhatia (SB): Hello, and welcome to The Wire Talks. I’m Sidharth Bhatia. The relationship between India and the US has been on an even keel for many years. Many Indian prime ministers and US presidents have worked towards bringing a sense of stability and direction to ties between the two countries. When Donald Trump took over as president earlier this year, this was expected to continue. Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeatedly emphasised that President Trump was his friend, and similar sentiments were expressed by President Trump who called him (Modi) a great friend and better negotiator. But things seem to have gone wrong, seriously wrong. In rapid succession, the Trump administration has taken a series of steps which will affect India adversely.First, heavy tariffs on Indian imports into the US. Then, the US revoked the waiver it had given on its Iran sanctions of 2018 to enable India to operate the terminal at Chabahar. And finally the recent announcement that a fee of $100,000 which is around 88 lakhs will be imposed on those who are given new H1-B visas. Considering that 70% of these visas are obtained by Indians, this will impact India the most.Why this sudden succession of blows? Is this a just an economic decision to protect the American economy or is it something else? Is Trump miffed with India for not endorsing his claim that he brought India and Pakistan together to stop Operation Sindoor? I am joined today by Manoj Joshi who is a longtime observer and commentator of Indo-US relations. Manoj, who was a journalist in the Times of India for many, many years is now a distinguished fellow at the observer research foundation. He should be able to unpack this slide in bilateral relations between the two democracies. Manoj Joshi, welcome to The Wire Talks.Manoj Joshi (MJ): Hello.SB: Manoj, to begin with, how would you see this deterioration in the bilateral relationship?MJ: Well, I think one of the things is that the Trump presidency has been a unique one. I have just been reading an article which says that it has been the most active, if I may put it that way, in 250 years of American presidents. I mean, Trump has done all sorts of things all over the place from fiddling with the constitution, fiddling with personal rights of Americans, questioning the authority of the Congress etc. So if you look at it in that framework, I think India should not have expected that things will be completely normal in the second Trump presidency. Meaning our expectations were that we would work along what happened in the first Trump presidency. Trump seems to have a certain idea of how he looks at the world. And I don’t think India figures all that high in it.The thing is that Trump is a businessman. He’s famously transactional and he is not ashamed to say he’s impressed by money. He’s a bit of a narcissist. Now when you look at this pattern, what you see is that this is not the kind of person who would be particularly impressed by India because India is a large, poor country. Yes, we may be the fourth largest economy in the world but we don’t have the kind of billionaires and trillionaires that the US has.We don’t have the kind of business opportunities that China has for the United States. So, I have a feeling that he doesn’t think very much of India. Now he certainly has said nice things about Modi. But the point is, of course, the very obvious thing is that he may say nice things about Modi but he basically is giving a kick in the pants to Modi’s country and he has done that repeatedly ever since he became the president. So, I think there’s a pattern of the way he looks at the world. And I think we are seeing a new shape – the America first geopolitical worldview. I think he’s trying to shape that.SB: But by that token, Manoj, he is not impressed. We are a poor country and we don’t have too many millionaires or billionaires etc. By that token, he should not be impressed with most countries in the world. Secondly, he has reached out to say from the Indian point of view – I’m just looking at it narrowly from the Indian point of view – he has reached out to Pakistan and said nice things about them and given them a particular status. So, many of these same conditions would apply there.MJ: Well, I did say that he is also transactional. So in the case of Pakistan, there’s the crypto deal that his family members signed with Pakistan. There’s a crypto deal, number one.Number two, the Pakistani offer to support him for a Nobel Prize. We may think that that’s a bit absurd, but he doesn’t look at it that way. He’s obsessed by the Nobel Prize. The third thing is that someone has told him that Pakistan has a huge quantity of oil reserves. So, he’s also looking at that. So, this is all transactional. He’s looking at business opportunities. Pakistan has offered him straight away – reached out to him, if I may put it that way. Told him you’re the greatest, we will back you for the Nobel Prize. And that seems to have tilted the scales against India. India has not really offered him anything.SB: Are you implying that some of the things that India has to offer for example techies or a big market etc, that wouldn’t impress him, is that what you’re saying?MJ: Yeah, definitely, because you know the techies and all that is also clashing against his domestic agenda. Domestically, he has promised his MAGA base that he’s going to give the jobs that have been taken away by foreigners are going to be made available to the MAGA base. Hence, the crackdown on H1B, generally crackdown on foreigners, foreign workers, foreign students, immigrants – legal and illegal. The thing is that’s clashing against the MAGA base. Now, if we had a particular company which was making billions and required Indian workers. Maybe his perspective may have been different. But right now, it’s clashing directly against his political agenda.SB: That was a good overview. Could you take us step by step on the decisions he has taken? We understand the tariffs thing and now this onetime fee for a new applicant to H1B. But could you explain to us how the specific decision in Iran affects India?MJ: Well, first of all, I’d like to tell you that the H1B is not a closed chapter. I was listening to an American immigration attorney yesterday on a news programme and what she said was that there are many issues that still need to be clarified and there are still issues which the administration could roll out.Now, as far as the Chabahar is concerned, in 2018 when we were considering investment in Chabahar, Trump had also begun his policy of maximum pressure on Iran. And because of good relations with India, the Americans agreed to give us a waiver – that means we could do business with Chabahar. We could invest in Chabahar. Our companies could do business there. So, that is a specific waiver we had got.One reason for the waiver was, at that time, the Americans were still in Afghanistan and Chabahar port provided India access to aid Afghanistan. We were supporters of the previous government in Afghanistan and we were using the Chabahar port to assist them, send food exports from India. Because we have a blockade on our western borders. The Pakistanis do not allow us to conduct any overland trade from the western borders. So, Chabahar was very useful for us to access Afghanistan. Secondarily, Chabahar was a useful means of developing links with Central Asia, actually multimodal links, and India was also examining the possibility of funding rail line from Chabahar to Zahedan and which goes towards Central Asia. So, we got that waiver and we were using it. We put in money: $250 million to $400 million have been put in.We operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal there. We’ve been using it and trade has been growing from there. But now, this waiver has put a question mark over all those plans. There is a second part of Chabahar is that India and Russia and Iran had back in 2000 signed an agreement to develop what’s called an International North-South Transportation Corridor. So this corridor would go roughly from Mumbai and our western Indian ports – multimodal – containers would go to Bandar Abbas pass and also Chabahar. From there, they would go by rail lines or by road northwards. So they could go to Central Asia or they could, via the Caucasus, go to Russia and onward towards the Baltics and Europe.The INSTC – you could almost see it as a kind of a repost to the Belt and Road initiative. Belt and Road was going east-west. INSTC was going north-south but the problem is that our trade with Russia has been anaemic – meaning it’s only after we started importing Russian oil in 2022 that our trade has grown. Otherwise, it used to be around $12-13 billion per annum. That is chicken feed. It’s only after that that when we started importing oil that it’s gone up to $50-60 billion. So the problem was that you had the concept of the INSTC but you didn’t have the ‘what are they going to trade with’ and secondly Iran came under sanctions. So the INSTC dream was set aside and in place Chabahar was there.Chabahar was limited in the sense that it would really serve central Asia but the INSTC is very much part of that larger program. Now that the Russians have been embargoed by the Europeans, they have been looking south and in fact they have actually funded some parts of the International North-South Transportation Corridor. So they are interested in shifting their trade southwards. Till now, they were all obsessed with Europe. So, Chabahar being one of the ports of Iran played an important role in that larger scheme which I described to you about the International North-South Transportation Corridor. Basically, because of the Pakistani blockade, India is compelled to bypass Pakistan if it wants connectivity links with the heartland of Asia.SB: You mentioned, Manoj, that trade with Russia has gone up considerably after we started importing oil. Now, of course, the US has been saying some people, some billionaires have made a lot of money and it is a fact that the price cuts, if any, have not been passed down to the consumer. But keeping that aside for one minute, why has the US or President Trump not sanctioned imposed tariffs on China which also imports oil from Russia.MJ: Well, now this is the thing. I personally think that he sees India as the weaker party. Trump is a bully. So the country he can bully is India. He tried with China but immediately the Chinese retaliated with their restrictions on the rare earths and rare earth magnets. So I think he just finds India easier to push around and China a more difficult customer and so he has not taken on China. Also, now this is the larger scheme of things, I think he is hoping to make a deal with China – a geopolitical deal. First, there will be an economic deal. Now what we are seeing is that he’s likely to meet President Xi at the APEC summit in South Korea and there’s talk of a presidential visit to China early next year.So I think that he also sees China as part of his geopolitical perspective and I will outline to you what that geopolitical perspective is. The way he looks at it is that the US should be the king of the western hemisphere. The US should be the overall king in any case, but there should be spheres of influence and the US sphere of influence will be the western hemisphere. That’s why you see his steps. He wanted to buy Greenland. He wanted to annex Canada. He’s been trying to recapture the Panama Canal. Then he’s been attacking Venezuela. So all this entire pattern, all these actions are in the Western Hemisphere. So I think the way he looks at it, and I’m here speculating, that he wants to be the boss of the western hemisphere, he wants to leave Europe more or less to its own devices to deal with Putin and as far as Asia is concerned, he thinks the Chinese should handle it. I think that’s his perspective.SB: You mentioned that he sees India as the weaker party and he wants to make a deal with China. Are you suggesting that he thinks India can be pushed around because they will not stand up and has India allowed itself to be pushed around? Plus, do we have any leverage like China has to hold the American economy, if not hostage, but certainly they will want what China has to offer but we have nothing. Both these points, do they have merit?MJ: The problem is we have no leverage. In fact, the leverage is against us. Our trade with America – 20% of our export go to the US and the US is a major investor in India. And the US technology – if you look at all the US companies that are giving – that deal with Bangalore and Hyderabad and Chennai and all these places. So in fact the US has leverage over us. We don’t have much leverage over the United States. So this is a certainly a major problem. And so we are actually casting around because, after all, our big exports – you are talking of shrimp, you’re talking of gems and jewellery, you’re talking of some electronics etc. That’s nothing compared to China.I just gave you the example of the strategic minerals and the rare earth minerals and the rare earth magnets. Those are absolutely vital for the electric vehicle industry. They’re absolutely vital for some of the US military programs. You see, so there is nothing comparable. If I remember, a long time ago, there was a list of strategic things that the US got from India. One was chromium, but you know, no big deal. The second was certain pharmaceuticals because we are a big pharmaceutical exporting country. But now the US itself is turning against vaccinations, vaccines and all that kind of stuff. So it’s not really a leverage. So frankly, if anything, we are the persons who can be bullied rather than the other way around.SB: We can be bullied on those counts because of our dependence on the US economy for our exports. But are you also suggesting that India would be seen as a country that wouldn’t stand up and say ‘Okay, we have these problems but we will stand up to you.’ Is that not part of being weaker?MJ: You see, the Indian strategy so far has been to give a lot of space to Trump. He has claimed 40-50 times that he brought on the ceasefire, pressured India on the issue of trade etc. But the Indians did not react. The Indian side did not react. Then, of course, there is that famous conversation of June 17th when he spoke to Modi. A very curious episode. On June 18th, he was giving lunch to the Pakistani field marshal in Washington DC. Mr. Modi was up in Canada so he rings up Mr. Modi says, ‘Why don’t you drop in in Washington DC?’ So it is a very transparent ploy to get Modi into the white house, have Munir stand next to him and have Trump in between saying how he has brought about the ceasefire and also to push Modi to support him for the Nobel.At that point, the worm turned and Modi finally told him that look, it’s not possible. I have to go to Slovakia. I’m expected there on my way back. And he said, look, as far as the ceasefire is concerned we did it between ourselves and the Nobel thing, he kind of probably fudged, I’m not sure, we don’t have the exact details but essentially said no and Trump was quite upset by that and apparently there was no conversation between the two till the phone call on September 16th on the eve of Mr. Modi’s birthday where they said nice things to each other – happy birthday and that we should build relations and we’ll also bring peace to Ukraine – that is another curious thing which Trump introduced there. Obviously, an illusion to the oil issue which is still hanging around. So the thing is that since we don’t have the leverage and I think, as far as our leaders are concerned, we are not known for courageous positions. Discretion is the better part of valour and I think that’s not entirely misplaced. The thing is that when you have no leverage there’s no point posturing and trying to do things which you can’t. So India has been taking it on the chin on a regular basis.Now the point is Mr. Modi’s problem is not so much the international community as it is the perception of him within India. He would not like to be perceived of as a weak person by his electorate who see him as a kind of a strong man. And so there is a balancing act going on. So you have a lot of media and others saying you know how we’ve taken a tough line, how we’ve done this to the Americans, we’ve done that to the Americans, they can do what they like but we’ll stand firm, all that has been said. But if you look at the statements and actions of the leaders they have been very, very discreet on this simply because you don’t have the leverage.SB: Tell me, do you think that somewhere along the way we thought that so-called “personal connect” was enough there? Did we overplay that bit that we are good friends. In the first term, there was ‘Howdy Modi’ and ‘Welcome Trump’ here etc. So do you think that the overemphasis on the Indian side that a personal connect, a hugging connect was going to be enough? Is that a trap we have set for ourselves?MJ: I think so. I think that what I told you right in the beginning, point is that Trump doesn’t think much of us. So it’s all right Howdy Modi comes along and all the tamasha and all that but the point is we probably took ourselves a bit too seriously on that. The fact of the matter is look, Mr. Trump is a racist. He’s a racist. He’s transactional. He’s pretty low life in terms of morals. So basically everything that he looks at, he says, what’s in it for myself. So the Howdy Modi and all that was basically electoral, hoping to get overseas Indian votes at that particular point in time. But I think when he looks at his cards, he looks at India, he says well I can fold on this thing and he’s famously known to respect tough figures – Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, even to certain extent Netanyahu, so all these hardline figures are the ones he respects and I think he thinks that a country like India doesn’t have much wherewithal, can’t give him much, and can’t even give him a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, doesn’t really amount to much. That, I think is really the bottom line out here.SB: I’m just going to move away from India-US for a minute because it fits in with what we’ve been discussing and that is the pact between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and really, Pakistan and the Gulf countries. Did we also overplay the personal friendship card there? Has Indian foreign policy become a kind of a personalised this instead of deep strategic thinking which takes into account these things?MJ: Well, in all fairness, we went to it into it with our eyes wide open. The Pakistani-Saudi linkage has been there for a long time. Back in the 80s, we used to talk about how the Pakistanis were making a bomb to which Saudis would have access. At that time, this used to be said. And all through, we have seen that how Saudi Arabia has accommodated Pakistan whenever there is an economic crisis or whenever there’s any kind of a crisis. Where did Nawaz Sharif run to after he was thrown out by Musharraf? He took refuge in Saudi Arabia. So, I think that in all fairness I think we’ve done reasonably well in the Gulf area. We’ve done reasonably well because we have managed to tap into that vein where these Gulf leaders are looking for economic partners and India is a huge market place for investment, Indian labor is there in that area.So I think if we don’t get carried away by our own brilliance, I think we’ve done a reasonably good job in in the Gulf countries because these are all the things that Pakistan can’t give. Pakistan doesn’t have a market. Pakistan comes with a begging bowl most of the time and even the Gulf countries are realistic enough to know that the Pakistani military shield is a highly questionable thing when push comes to shove. After all, the Pakistanis let down the Saudis when the Yemen issue came up. So there is no guarantee – Pakistan in its military alliances has been a one-way street. They’ve had a military alliance with the US but it’s the US which has been helping Pakistan or US has been bankrolling Pakistan. Pakistanis have not done much. What did they do? They provided the geographical place from which the US could intervene in Afghanistan but they didn’t do any of the fighting.They creamed off a lot of the aid from there and the Pakistanis played both the Americans and the al-Qaeda, Taliban. They double-crossed the Americans very shamelessly. So what I’m trying to say is that, I would be really surprised if the Gulf countries seriously thought that there is a Pakistani option and that Pakistan would somehow be an ally of last resort if it came to dealing with Israel’s nuclear threat. The more likely thing is earlier they all looked at Pakistan as a source to offset Iran but right now, Iran is down and out because that was a Shia-Sunni thing, straight away.SB: Looking to the future, you’ve written in one of your recent articles that India should develop its own strategic autonomy and not get charmed by Trump’s, the phrase you used was ‘will of the wisp’ but fickle really, friendships. Is looking towards Russia and China for some kind of arrangement, is that part of moving towards a new order for India?MJ: I don’t think so. Basically, it’s just that in the last five years, we probably tilted too much towards the United States and I think there is need for some correction there. And I think that correction is now happening by force. The United States is enforcing that correction. But otherwise, as I explained to you, we do need the Americans and we can’t do without them. And as far as the Chinese are concerned, we have a border dispute with them and until that border dispute is resolved – there’s the border dispute plus there are geopolitical differences with China.Russia is the one country which is a steady friend and ally of India, but the problem is that the Russians are embroiled in Europe. They’ve sustained huge losses and the Russians, as I told you, do not offer much by way of economic partnership – yes, certainly, energy partnership is there but under normal conditions energy from Iran would be cheaper than energy from anywhere else.So what I’m trying to say is that broadly, what we’ve been doing is fine – the so-called multi-alignment, which means non-alignment with fewer principles. But that is a situation that obtains in the world today. Countries have fewer principles – when they look at the world, the issue of morality has vanished. You look at what’s happening in Gaza, virtually no one is saying anything. India particularly has taken a peculiar stand. Not saying anything but it doesn’t affect us directly. The United Nations itself is in trouble, it’s almost dysfunctional. So in that, what does multi-alignment mean? Multi-alignment means non-alignment in an era where it is every man for himself, every country for itself.SB: My final overview of it: do you think that our relationship with the US one way or the other has to be put back on track as and when because that’s the one country where we have a lot of needs. Our people go there, our students go there, our diaspora is there, our exports are there. So my point is, one way or the other we will have to put this relationship on a sound footing at some stage and there is no getting back. And how do we do this?MJ: Well, certainly, I think how we do it is a is a big problem because the point is that as you can see in our discussion that what’s been happening is that we are being the recipients of the kicks that the US is giving. We have not really done anything dramatic to the US. It’s the US which has been hitting us. So the only strategy available out here is that you take it on the chin and wait for the Trump administration to either change course or to end its term and then we can move ahead.I think a low-key approach keeping our head down at this stage, I think, is the best option with the US and I would once again as I said, that geopolitically we need the US, economically and geopolitically. I told you that we have a problem with China. We have a problem on the border with China. We have a problem geopolitically with China – geopolitical competition in the Indian Ocean region with China. So, the US offers us geopolitical support out there. But if the US is walking away, which I explained to you this whole hemispheric business, I’m not even sure whether the quad summit is going to take place in India this year, leave alone having Trump come for the quad summit.So there are big changes that Trump has been more or less doing what he wants to do. Trying to explain the future when Trump is concerned is a highly hazardous occupation. So I will not say that but all I’ll say is that we need to keep our head down, take it on the chin to the extent we can make our red lines clear, as we have done in the case of Pakistan, where we drew the red line saying that we do not accept mediation on India-Pakistan issues, but that’s all we can do. We have to understand, far from being any kind of a great power, we are a somewhat weak Asian power which has to then reach out to other countries – Japan, east European Union, and others, strengthen relationships with them. That’s the only thing that can help us in this period.SB: So, basically, we have to do some course correction too.MJ: Yes, yes. We have to do course correction as well. We tilt it too close to the Americans.SB: Well, keeping your head down, meanwhile, there will probably be more punches and more suffering. So it’s a long ride because now, somebody has introduced a bill about 25% tax on every company that sends money overseas. So every American company that sends investment overseas. So even there, more will be coming and you don’t know what’s going to happen to the students. That’s the other thing.MJ: Well, I told you that the saga of H1-B is not over. There are still issues there which have not been ironed out. So the people who are celebrating, I think should be a bit careful.SB: So as I said, Manoj, it’s going to be a long time of taking punches and suffering. But thanks for explaining this whole thing. I think you’ve been quite candid, I must say, in many ways. I think because normally, and I’m generalising, people who are analysts and pandits couch their statements in all kinds of jargon or euphemisms but you’ve been quite candid so thank you very much for that, that’s the journalist in you.So, thank you once again, Manoj, for taking part in this.That was Manoj Joshi, who is one of India’s best known thinkers on Indo-US and other strategic issues. He’s a former journalist. So we’ll be back next week with another guest on The Wire Talks. Till then from me and the rest of the team, goodbye!