If India Were My Client

The world’s top political communicator needs a new approach. Here’s what I would suggest.

I have spent years advising governments and political parties on communication. My clients include Chief Ministers, ministers, party presidents, and campaign leaders. I have seen what happens when a message lands and what happens when it does not. I have watched leaders build narratives that win elections and destroy narratives that cost them elections.

When I review India’s foreign policy communication over the past 12 months, I do not see it as a journalist, a commentator, or a political observer. I see it as a consultant. And as a consultant, I have one key observation.

India’s challenge isn’t with its foreign policy itself, but with how it communicates that policy. Communication issues are easier to fix.

The Playbook That Won India

Let me first give credit where it is due, because this is not a story about failure. It is a story about a playbook that stopped working.

Narendra Modi built the most effective political communication machinery in Indian democratic history. This is not hyperbole. No Indian leader has ever commanded narrative the way Modi does. The surgical strike became a brand. Balakot became a verb. “56-inch chest” became a national mood. When India launched Operation Sindoor in May 2025, the Prime Minister stood in Parliament and said Pakistan’s air bases were “still in ICU.” The line was devastating. It was repeated in every newsroom, every drawing room, every WhatsApp group in the country.

This is a man who understands the power of words better than any leader India has produced since Nehru. Perhaps better than Nehru, because Nehru spoke to elites while Modi speaks to everyone.

But here’s the problem: the rules have changed. The strategy that worked in India isn’t working overseas.

The Phone Call That Told Two Stories

On February 2, 2026, Donald Trump and Narendra Modi spoke by phone. What happened next is a masterclass in how two leaders can describe the same conversation and shape two entirely different realities.

Trump posted on Truth Social within minutes. India, he said, had agreed to stop buying Russian oil. India would reduce tariffs on American goods to zero. India would buy $500 billion worth of American products. In exchange, the United States would reduce tariffs on Indian goods from 50 per cent to 18 per cent.

Modi posted on X. “Delighted that Made in India products will now have a reduced tariff of 18%. Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of the 1.4 billion people of India.”

Read both statements carefully. Trump claimed four major Indian concessions. Modi confirmed just one: the tariff reduction. He said nothing about Russian oil. Nothing about reducing Indian tariffs to zero. Nothing about the $500 billion commitment.

Russia, for its part, said India had made no such commitment.

In any normal diplomatic engagement, this would be a communications triumph for India. Strategic ambiguity. Accept the win, ignore the rest. Classic statecraft.

But this is not a normal diplomatic engagement. This is the Trump era. And in the Trump era, silence is not strategic ambiguity. Silence is a concession.

Within hours, every major global newspaper carried the headline: “Modi agrees to stop buying Russian oil.” Not “Trump claims Modi agreed.” Not “India and US disagree on deal terms.” The headline was definitive. The narrative was set. And India never corrected it.

The Pattern

This is not a one-off. It is a pattern. And the pattern is what concerns me.

In May 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor, carrying out precise strikes on nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation was decisive, measured, and by all accounts, successful. Pakistan’s DGMO called his Indian counterpart to request a ceasefire, and India agreed after meeting its goals.

Then, even before India had a chance to grab that evening cuppa of kadak masala chai, Trump posted on Truth Social, saying he had mediated the ceasefire after “a long night” of negotiations. He has repeated this claim at the National Prayer Breakfast, in speeches, and on social media. As of last week, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said Trump is “fast approaching the century mark” for making this claim.

How did India respond? In June 2025, Modi told Trump directly on a phone call that India had never accepted mediation and never would. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri issued a detailed statement, and Prime Minister Modi reiterated the message in Parliament. This was a strong response, the old playbook in action.

But something changed between June 2025 and February 2026.

When Trump imposed 50% tariffs on India, the harshest on any major trading partner, India took the hit. When Indians were deported from America in handcuffs and shackles, India stayed silent. When Trump’s adviser Peter Navarro called the Ukraine conflict “Modi’s war” on Bloomberg TV, India didn’t respond. And when the tariff “deal” was announced, with claims that India would stop buying Russian oil and open its markets, the Prime Minister responded with gratitude.

“Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of the 1.4 billion people of India.”

I’m not questioning the diplomacy; I’m questioning the communication. There’s a difference. The deal itself might be solid; eighteen percent is better than fifty percent. However, the way it was communicated relinquished control of the story. The world saw India as giving in. Whether that’s true or not doesn’t matter now. The story is set.

Why the Old Playbook Does Not Work

If India were my client, the first thing I’d explain is why the current strategy doesn’t work against someone like Trump.

India’s foreign policy communication was designed for a world in which diplomacy occurred behind closed doors, joint statements were carefully negotiated, and both sides shaped the narrative together. In that world, staying silent was a tool. You didn’t have to answer every provocation; actions spoke for themselves, and dignity was maintained.

Trump demolished that world.

He announces deals before they’re final. He claims concessions that never happened. He posts on social media before agreements are even finished. By repeating things loudly and often, he shapes the facts. In today’s world, where the first story wins, the leader who speaks first shapes the truth.

India’s system isn’t built for this speed. By the time New Delhi crafts a careful response, the global story is already set. The headlines are written, WhatsApp messages have spread, and think tank commentaries are published.

This isn’t a failure of Indian diplomats; they’re among the best in the world. The problem is a mismatch between India’s communication system, built for a pre-social-media, pre-Trump era, and how global stories are shaped today.

What I Would Advise

If India’s foreign policy communication team walked into my office tomorrow, here is what I would tell them.

First, match the speed. When Trump posts a claim on Truth Social, India has about ninety minutes before it becomes the global headline. Not ninety days, not after long internal discussions, just ninety minutes. India needs a rapid-response team for foreign policy communication that operates at social media speed. The PM’s office already does this at home. Now it’s time to do the same internationally.

Second, stop using silence as a strategy. In the old diplomatic world, not responding showed confidence. In the Trump era, not responding can appear to be agreement. When Trump says Modi agreed to stop buying Russian oil and India stays silent, people assume it’s true. Not denying something is seen as admitting it. India needs to learn how to deny without making things worse. Even a simple line like “the details of our bilateral discussions will be reflected in a formal agreement in due course” could have changed the February 2 headline.

Third, set your own narrative before someone else does. Modi is great at this inside India. The night before the Union Budget or any major announcement, the government’s message is everywhere, and by the time the opposition responds, the story is already set. India needs to adopt this approach internationally as well. Before a Trump call or similar engagement, brief key international journalists on India’s position. After the call, share India’s version within the hour. Don’t wait for the foreign leader to shape the conversation.

Fourth, show strength, not just gratitude. This is a subtle but important point. When India secures a difficult negotiation, such as reducing tariffs from 50% to 18%, the message should emphasise it as an Indian achievement. Saying “India secured a significant tariff reduction through sustained diplomatic engagement” sounds very different from “Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of 1.4 billion people.” The first shows India’s strength; the second suggests dependence. Both describe the same result, but one builds the brand, and the other weakens it.

Fifth, use surrogates. The Prime Minister shouldn’t respond to every claim; that only gives the claim more weight. Instead, build a network of credible voices: former diplomats, strategic affairs experts, and friendly international analysts who can push back on misrepresentations without turning it into a leader-to-leader fight. India has a talented diaspora of scholars and analysts in places like Washington, London, and Singapore. They’re not used enough.

The Domestic Cost of International Silence

There’s another aspect that worries me, and I say this as someone who knows both domestic and foreign communication well.

Every time Trump takes credit for something India did, and India doesn’t respond, the opposition gains an advantage. Jairam Ramesh’s “approaching the century mark” line works because it highlights a real gap. The voter who cheered Operation Sindoor in May 2025 now hears from international media that the U.S. has stopped it. The voter who celebrated the 56-inch chest wonders why it seems smaller when Trump or Jinping is around.

This isn’t a crisis yet. Modi’s domestic brand is strong enough to handle these hits. However, communication damage accumulates over time. It doesn’t explode; it slowly wears away. By the time you notice, the foundation has already shifted.

Four states are voting this year: Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Assam. The BJP’s message in these states will focus on Modi’s record on national security. If the opposition can paint Modi as strong at home but deferential abroad, tough on Pakistan but quiet with America and China, that’s a powerful argument. It may not matter immediately, or in Tamil Nadu or Kerala, where the BJP faces other challenges. But in Assam and Bengal, where national security is key, the gap between the Sindoor rhetoric and the Trump or Jinping silence could make a difference.

The Opportunity

I want to be clear: this isn’t a critique. It’s a diagnosis. And every diagnosis suggests a treatment.

India is in a stronger position today than at any point in its independent history. The economy, despite the tariff shock, is growing faster than any major nation. Operation Sindoor demonstrated military capability that reshaped perceptions of India. The India-EU trade deal, which Modi rightly called the “mother of all deals,” shows diplomatic sophistication. The India-US trade deal is in the works, and India’s BRICS chairmanship in 2026 offers a platform to project leadership.

India’s strengths are exceptional. But communicating those strengths to the world isn’t.

Modi built his domestic brand by realising that in the social media age, whoever tells the story first controls it. He knew voters don’t read policy documents; they absorb stories. He understood that feelings matter more than facts, identity matters more than arguments, and speed matters more than depth.

All these lessons apply to international communication as well. India has not yet used them effectively.

The world’s best political communicator doesn’t need new instincts; he needs a new arena. The instincts that made a chai wallah India’s most powerful man can also make India a leading voice in the new global order.

But the playbook needs an upgrade. And the upgrade is long overdue.