The Congress on Friday launched a dual-pronged attack over the stalled India–United States trade deal, using sharp political satire to target Prime Minister Narendra Modi while also pushing back strongly against remarks made by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The episode highlighted not only growing domestic political sparring over India’s foreign policy posture but also deeper unease within India about how Washington is framing bilateral negotiations under the Trump administration.

At the centre of the controversy are comments by Lutnick, who claimed that India missed the opportunity to finalise a trade agreement with the United States because Prime Minister Modi did not personally call US President Donald Trump to seal the deal. The remarks triggered immediate reactions from Congress leaders, ranging from mocking jibes to substantive criticism of what they described as an immature and transactional approach to international diplomacy.

Congress MP and senior leader Jairam Ramesh took to social media to ridicule the situation with a Bollywood-flavoured taunt aimed squarely at the Prime Minister. Sharing a video clip, Ramesh wrote, “Hug hug na raha, post post na raha,” a sarcastic reference to Modi’s earlier high-profile public displays of camaraderie with global leaders, including his widely publicised hugs with former US presidents.

He followed it up with another line dripping with irony: “Kya se kya ho gaya, bewafa teri dosti mein.” The remark was a clear dig at what the Congress sees as the collapse of Modi’s carefully cultivated personal diplomacy with the United States, suggesting that the much-touted bonhomie has failed to translate into tangible economic outcomes.

While Ramesh’s comments leaned heavily on political theatre, another Congress MP, Manish Tewari, adopted a more analytical tone, reserving his sharpest criticism for the US administration rather than the Indian government. Reacting to Lutnick’s statements, Tewari dismissed the idea that complex trade negotiations hinge on personal phone calls between leaders as deeply flawed.

“To suggest that deals succeed or fail based on who calls whom is a very imbecile approach to international relations,” Tewari said in comments to the PTI news agency. He underlined that India–US relations are anchored in long-term strategic, civilisational, and geopolitical considerations, not ad hoc personal gestures.

“India and the United States share a deep civilisational and strategic relationship, not limited to the Asia-Pacific alone,” Tewari said, adding that the partnership has evolved and endured across multiple administrations in both countries. According to him, framing a failed trade agreement as the result of a missed phone call trivialises decades of diplomatic engagement and mutual interests.

Tewari further argued that the US administration needs to recognise India’s strategic position in the Asia-Pacific and beyond, which has been central to the bilateral relationship. “This is something the Trump administration seems to be overlooking,” he said, suggesting that Washington’s current approach risks undermining goodwill built over years.

The controversy stems from remarks made by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during an appearance on the “All-In Podcast,” a popular technology and business show. In the interview, Lutnick claimed that an India–US trade deal was “all set up” but ultimately fell through because Prime Minister Modi did not directly reach out to President Trump.

“You had to have Modi call President Trump. They were uncomfortable doing it. So Modi didn’t call,” Lutnick said, portraying the breakdown of talks as a matter of personal hesitation rather than policy disagreement. He added that the Trump administration was keen on finalising an early agreement with India but felt that New Delhi failed to act decisively when it mattered.

Lutnick also used the podcast to explain President Trump’s broader trade negotiation strategy, which he described as a “staircase” model. Under this approach, countries that moved quickly to conclude agreements with the US would receive the most favourable terms. Those that delayed or hesitated would face progressively tougher conditions, including higher tariffs.

According to Lutnick, this strategy was designed to reward early cooperation and put pressure on trading partners to align with US priorities swiftly. In India’s case, he implied, hesitation cost New Delhi the chance to secure a better deal.

Despite trade talks formally beginning in February 2025, India and the United States have so far failed to conclude an agreement. Several rounds of negotiations were held throughout the year, including multiple in-person meetings. A US delegation led by Deputy US Trade Representative Rick Switzer visited India as recently as December 2025 in an effort to break the deadlock.

However, the talks did not yield a breakthrough. In the absence of a deal, the Trump administration’s punitive tariff regime on India remains in place. This includes a 50 per cent tariff on certain Indian exports, incorporating a 25 per cent penalty specifically linked to India’s continued purchase of Russian energy. These measures have been a major point of friction between the two countries, particularly as India has consistently defended its energy decisions as being driven by national interest and economic necessity.

For the Congress, the episode has provided fresh ammunition to question the Modi government’s foreign policy narrative. Jairam Ramesh’s remarks were aimed at puncturing what the opposition sees as an overreliance on personal diplomacy and optics. The reference to hugs and social media posts was a reminder of the BJP’s past emphasis on Modi’s rapport with global leaders as a diplomatic asset.

At the same time, Manish Tewari’s comments reflected a more nuanced position within the party—one that seeks to defend India’s institutional diplomatic framework while cautioning against the US reducing bilateral relations to personal equations between leaders.

The contrasting tones within the Congress response—mockery on one hand and measured critique on the other—also underscore the party’s broader strategy. While it continues to attack the Modi government domestically, it remains wary of appearing to side with external pressure or endorse what it views as unreasonable demands from Washington.

From a larger perspective, the episode exposes underlying tensions in the India–US relationship at a time when both countries publicly describe each other as strategic partners. While cooperation in defence, technology, and the Indo-Pacific has expanded, trade remains a persistent sticking point. Issues such as tariffs, market access, digital trade, and energy policy have repeatedly stalled progress.

The suggestion that a trade deal could hinge on a single phone call has struck many in India as emblematic of a more transactional and personalised US foreign policy under the Trump administration. Whether or not Lutnick’s account accurately reflects what transpired behind closed doors, his remarks have clearly resonated in New Delhi—politically and diplomatically.

As things stand, the India–US trade deal remains elusive, and the tariffs remain in force. What is equally clear is that the debate around it has now spilled into the political arena, with opposition leaders using it to question both the Modi government’s diplomatic style and the United States’ negotiating posture. In doing so, the Congress has sought to frame the issue not merely as a failed deal, but as a cautionary tale about reducing complex international relationships to personality-driven transactions.