Theatre of Absurd
Pioneered by European playwrights like Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter, this art form has got a new exponent in (Mc)Donald Trump. And the absurdity is illogical and extreme.
Disrespect is his new diplomatic tool, and he spares no one. He rebuked Zelensky, he mocked Macron and humiliated Kier Starmer. They are all his 'subjects'.
But now he has tried to land a blow on the Indian PM.
The Apache helicopters reference shows how this theatre works. Trump recalls Modi supposedly saying, ‘Sir, may I see you, please?’ Anyone who has watched Modi in bilateral settings knows this is not his register. He has always been Formal, 'Mr PM', 'Mr President', 'Your Excellency', as the protocol demands. But Modi being 'deferential'? No, that is unimaginable. Here is someone who has risen through the rigours of public life of half a century. He knows the ground he stands on. The phrasing sounds less like Modi and more like Trump’s familiar storytelling habit, where other leaders appear as supplicants and he plays the towering boss.
This ‘Sir’ routine is a well-worn Trump device. He has used it with allies and adversaries alike. It elevates him in the story and shrinks everyone else. The anecdote does not have to be accurate. It only has to reinforce the hierarchy Trump wants his audience to see.
But the factual inaccuracies make his statements fall flat. Trump speaks of 68 Apaches and five-year delays. India ordered 28. Twenty-two were delivered to the Air Force years ago. Only the later Army batch ran into delays. It is selective exaggeration.
Was it an innocent mix up or a deliberate exaggeration? It might be a deliberate exaggeration. Because scale creates grievance. Sixty-eight helicopters waiting five years sounds like injury. Twenty-eight across two deals, mostly delivered on time, does not.
Which brings up the question: Why does Modi not respond? I would ask: Why should he?
Trump is not arguing. He is creating an imaginary aura. Why should we give a body and a form to something that is imaginary? Narcissists, like Trump, thrive on reaction, which they interpret as acknowledgement. Silence denies it. It denies them the oxygen to survive.
There is also a deeper asymmetry at play here.
Trump responds warmly to those who flatter him, like Asim Munir. When Trump praises Pakistan’s self-styled Field Marshal, it fits the pattern. But the logic is simple. Munir needs American goodwill, so he offers admiration. And Trump reciprocates.
India sits in a different category. It trades with the US on a transactional basis. It cooperates where interests align and resists where they do not. India thwarts, successfully, the USA's attempts to enter its agriculture and dairy sectors. Modi does not need American approval to legitimise his leadership at home. That independence irritates Trump. Modi is not waiting for validation because he has not usurped the power, like Shahbaz Sharif, through manipulation which needs sustenance from a super power. Modi's position is validated by a mandate, a support from allies and the inherent strength of the Indian constitution.
This is why Trump keeps poking. He invariably either prefixes or suffixes his provocative statements with "Modi is a good man", almost like a refrain. The aim is not policy correction alone, it is psychological repositioning, seeking to get Modi, and India, on knees.
For India, responding emotionally would be a mistake. A sharp rebuttal might satisfy domestic audiences for a day, but it would feed Trump’s narcissistic ego. A mature silence denies him the confrontation he seeks and allows India to absorb noise while negotiating substances elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment