India Rejects Claims That Trade Deal Stalled Because Modi Didn't Call Trump

​In the world of international diplomacy, sometimes the smallest details make the biggest headlines. For the past several days, a new controversy has been brewing between New Delhi and Washington. It all started when a high-ranking official from the United States suggested that a major trade deal between the two countries fell through for one simple, almost petty reason: a missing phone call.

​The claim, made by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, painted a picture of a deal that was ready to be signed, only to be derailed because Prime Minister Narendra Modi allegedly refused to pick up the phone and speak directly to President Donald Trump. On Friday, India finally broke its silence, firmly rejecting this version of events. The Ministry of External Affairs called the characterization "not accurate," sparking a wider debate about how trade deals are actually made in 2026.

​The "Missing Call" Controversy Explained

​To understand the drama, we have to look at what was said on a popular podcast earlier this week. Howard Lutnick, a key figure in the Trump administration's trade team, claimed that the India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement was essentially a "done deal" on paper. According to him, the final step required the "closer"—President Trump—to finalize it with a personal call from Prime Minister Modi.

​Lutnick suggested that Indian officials were "uncomfortable" arranging such a direct outreach at that specific moment. Because the call never happened, he claimed, the US moved on to other countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, leaving India at the "back of the line." This narrative implies that personal ego or protocol hesitation cost India a massive economic opportunity.

​India’s Sharp Rebuttal: Setting the Record Straight

​The Indian government’s response was swift and calculated. During a media briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal didn't just deny the claim; he brought the receipts. He pointed out that far from avoiding the phone, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump have actually spoken on the phone eight times throughout 2025.

​By highlighting these eight conversations, India is sending a clear message: the communication channels at the top level are wide open. The idea that a trade deal would collapse over the lack of a ninth call doesn't hold up under scrutiny. India’s position is that the talks are stalled because of substantive policy disagreements, not because of a lack of personal rapport between the two leaders.

​The Real Stumbling Blocks: Russia and Tariffs

​While the "phone call" story makes for a great headline, the reality of the India-US trade friction is much more complex. The relationship is currently going through one of its most difficult phases in decades. The real tension stems from two main issues: India's purchase of Russian oil and President Trump’s aggressive tariff policies.

​In August 2025, the US raised tariffs on Indian imports to a staggering 50%. This included a 25% "reciprocal" tariff and an additional 25% levy specifically targeting India for continuing to buy oil from Russia despite Western sanctions. Washington sees these oil purchases as fueling the Russian war machine, while New Delhi maintains that it must prioritize affordable energy for its 1.4 billion citizens. These are deep-seated structural conflicts that a simple phone call cannot resolve.

​Is Personal Diplomacy Enough in 2026?

​The Lutnick comments highlight a specific style of diplomacy often associated with the current US administration. It is a "transactional" approach where personal chemistry and high-profile deal-making are seen as the primary drivers of international relations. From this perspective, every deal needs a "closer" and a symbolic handshake (or phone call) to be valid.

​However, India’s trade experts argue that this oversimplifies how global economics work. A trade deal involves thousands of pages of text covering everything from agricultural market access to digital data privacy and labor laws. These are matters debated in parliaments and ministries for months. Suggesting that it all comes down to whether one leader calls another is seen by many in New Delhi as trivializing a very serious and complicated partnership.

​The "Seesaw" and the Future of the Deal

​In his podcast appearance, Lutnick used a metaphor of a "seesaw," saying India ended up on the wrong side of it. He suggested that because India hesitated, other Southeast Asian nations jumped ahead and secured better terms. This puts pressure on India to accept whatever terms are left on the table if they want to get back into the game.

​Despite the current war of words, both sides still claim they want a deal. India reiterated this week that it remains "interested in a mutually beneficial trade agreement." The goal is still to more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by the end of the decade. But with 50% tariffs currently hurting Indian exporters, the road to that goal is looking increasingly rocky.

​The Impact on the Average Citizen

​For the common person, these high-level spats might seem distant, but they have a direct impact on the wallet. High tariffs mean that Indian products—from textiles and jewelry to engineering goods—become more expensive in the US. This leads to lower sales, which can eventually affect jobs in Indian manufacturing hubs.

​On the flip side, if the US gets its way on "reciprocal" tariffs, American products like apples, almonds, and Harley-Davidson motorcycles could become cheaper in India. The stakes are high for everyone, which is why both governments are so sensitive about who gets the blame for the current deadlock.

​Conclusion: Moving Beyond the Drama

​As we move further into 2026, the India-US relationship remains a study in contradictions. On one hand, they are critical strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific. On the other, they are locked in a fierce trade war that feels increasingly personal.

​The "Modi didn't call" narrative is likely just a symptom of this frustration. While the US wants a quick, symbolic victory to show its "America First" policy is working, India is sticking to its guns on "strategic autonomy" and protecting its domestic interests. Both countries will eventually have to find a middle ground that goes deeper than a phone call. Until then, we can expect more of these public disagreements as both sides vie for leverage.