Listen to this article:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is obsessed with China. He made four visits to China as chief minister of Gujarat and six as the prime minister, which is more than the visits to China by any other Indian prime minister. He has had 22 meetings with Xi Jinping between 2014 and 2026, which is more than by any other world leader with the lone exception of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. The Modi government has repeatedly posted record imports from China (with record deficits), larger than from any other country since Independence, a phenomenon that has continued even after the Chinese aggression in Ladakh in 2020.

The robust supply chains that Modi and commerce minister Piyush Goyal keep mentioning ad nauseum actually pass through Beijing given our calamitous dependence on parts, components, and assemblies imported from China and incorporated in ‘Made in India’ goods sometimes through misrepresentation as in a recent case of Unitree’s robot rechristened ORION.

Modi has not made a single negative comment on China in almost 12 years, even after Galwan in 2020 that resulted in loss of 20 army personnel and an estimated loss of 1000 square kms of territory according to Lt Gen (Retd) H.S. Panag GOC-in-C Northern Command. So great is Modi’s deference to Jinping that his government has not allowed a single discussion in parliament on the border stand-off with China in Ladakh. Not even after the Modi government faced criticism for its handling of the India-China standoff at Rechin La in August 2020, as mentioned in General M.M. Naravane’s memoirs Four Stars of Destiny, which is making headlines this month.

While Modi spoke in parliament on Trump’s role in Operation Sindoor, he chose not to speak on China’s role. Similarly, while Operation Sindoor in May 2025 witnessed China’s extensive C4ISR support to Pakistan, including “getting live inputs from China” as spelt out by Indian Army’s Vice Chief Lt General Rahul R. Singh, the Modi government’s ministers again chose not to mention China’s role during the debate in parliament.

It may be recalled that even during his historic address to the joint session of US Congress in June 2023, Modi while referring to “dark clouds” in the Indo-Pacific was careful to clarify: “Our vision does not seek to contain or exclude.”

The Naravane conundrum

Rahul Gandhi has strongly highlighted China’s role in Operation Sindoor, framing it as India’s biggest threat and enemy that must be resisted with all resources. This stance aligns with his support for General Naravane, who allegedly questioned the Modi government’s resolve to confront China in his unpublished book Four Stars of Destiny, citing the prime minister’s direction – ‘jo uchit samjho karo‘ – as evidence of ambiguity.

More important are General Naravane’s reported apprehension in his unpublished book (as revealed by The Caravan on X, and in other social media platforms) about: the (a) economic condition of India; (b) a possible combined aggression by China and Pakistan; (c) whether there would be global support for India; (d) the extent of damage to India by Covid; (e) and whether supply chains for defence supplies were reliable.

These considerations and reservation, and not merely the direction ‘jo uchit samjho wo karo,’ are perhaps the most controversial part sof not only the Rechin La face-off, but of the entire book.

Naravane has neither denied nor accepted having said these reported revelations in his unpublished book. These observations may have conditioned the exercise of freedom given to him in the carte blanche ‘jo uchit sumjho wo karo’.

The attack on Rahul Gandhi as the enemy within

To mask its inability to even publicly acknowledge China as the number one enemy of India, the Modi government has launched an unparalleled blitz to project Rahul Gandhi as a puppet and stooge of China. It serves to deflect attention from a policy rooted in conciliation of China. He has been accused of: attempting to divide the nation; collaborating with China; falsely claiming that China grabbed grazing land in Ladakh and thereby acting as China’s propaganda machine; spying against India and undermining the morale of Indian forces; behaving like “Rahul Jinping”; being an agent working in China’s interest; promoting narratives that weaken India’s position against China; amplifying China’s disinformation campaign against the Rafale jets, thereby echoing Pakistan’s narrative and undermining the Indian Armed Forces during Operation Sindoor; lavishing praise on China while belittling India’s progress; being Beijing’s Ambassador of the Year; distrusting Naravane’s narrative on China; attempting to spoil India’s relationship with China by raising issues from General Naravane’s book in parliament. 

Modi government’s Catch 22 situation

The Modi government is caught in a Catch 22 situation. It is unwilling to attack Naravane himself because of the position he occupied. It is not allowing discussion on what he has allegedly said because it doesn’t want to be held accountable.

The Modi government’s defence that the book’s account cannot be quoted, because the government, which itself is under the scanner, has not allowed it to be published is de facto unsustainable because the entire book is now being circulated on social media including WhatsApp in PDF form, and Naravane is yet to deny the authenticity of that. 

Between a rock and a hard place

While China has tightened its grip on Indian economy with record surpluses without relenting on its position in Ladakh by refusing a return to status quo ante prior to Galwan in 2020, Trump too is ramping up enormous pressure on Modi to sign the dotted line on the reported US-India trade deal. This has placed the Modi government between a rock (China) and a hard place (US).

There appears to be a common objective behind: (a) the open accusations against RAW in the case against Nikhil Gupta filed in Manhattan federal court; (b) the threatened full-fledged indictment of Adani in US courts; (c) the orchestrated release in Jan 2026 of the Epstein Files potentially incriminating a Union Minister; (d) the deliberate concessions of zero percent duty on textiles from Bangladesh while imposing 18% tariff on Indian goods; (e) the foot dragging on supply of GE engines for our LCA; (f) the threat to target remittances from US; (g) the tightening of issue of student visas; (h) the pressure and expectation that Modi Govt should turn India into a command economy guaranteeing $500 billion imports from US in five years with zero % duty, halt the import of Russian crude, and accept an increase in agri imports from US.

The main objective has been to force Modi to yield on the US-India trade deal.

Impact of US Supreme Court judgement in learning resource Inc versus Trump

The judgement is a stinging rebuke to Trump for trying to arrogate to himself the legislative powers, of which taxation and tariffs are a part, vested only in the Congress by virtue of Article 1 of the US constitution, unless otherwise delegated by Congress to the executive with clear guidelines and limitations.

The US court not only held that International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not vest any jurisdiction on the president to levy tariffs, it went beyond the IEEPA to caution Trump against possible misuse of other powers delegated to president in other laws permitting imposition of tariffs by the executive through delegation. With astonishing prediction it refers to Section 122 of The Trade Act of 1974 invoked by Trump on February 20, 2026 to levy generalised 15% tariffs on imports starting February 24.

An image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump, put through a filter. Photo: PTI/File.

The concurring majority judgement of Justice Kagan J. referring to provision in Section 122 of The Trade Act of 1974 that Trump has now used to levy tariffs, notes: “Title 19 of the US Code includes multiple provisions granting the president authority to levy tariffs. But in each and every instance, Congress has not only used specific language (e.g. “duty” or “surcharge”), but also imposed tight restraints on the power given. It has capped the tariff’s rate (e.g. 15%); or limited the tariff’s duration (e.g. 150 days); or established strict procedural conditions before the tariff can take effect (e.g. investigations, public hearings, and reports); or all of the above. What Congress has never done in a tariff provision is what the Government claims it did here – conferred power on the President to impose a tariff of any amount, for any time, on only his own say-so. And construing IEEPA to give that unparalleled authority would effectively erase all the carefully confined tariff provisions in Title 19. For any President could then escape the rigours of those laws—could put in place, say, a non-time-limited 100% tariff on all foreign products—by the simple expedient of identifying a foreign threat. That gutting of Title 19’s tariff scheme is not what Congress, when delegating power to “regulate” imports, could have meant to accomplish.”

The upshot of this ruling is that: (a) Trump cannot meaningfully use threat of imposing differential tariffs as a bargaining chip for trade and other concessions such as market access from individual countries; (b) the alternate procedures, especially Section 122 and 301 of Trade Act of 1974, impose on Trump lengthy procedures, guidelines involving notices to countries and consideration of their responses before imposing tariffs; (c) these tariffs have to be proportional to the damage caused to US and circumscribed by equivalence; (d) the tariffs are of limited duration and are expected to consider WTO guidelines where applicable; (e) Section 201 of Trade Act can be used to impose quotas on ground of “serious injury” to a domestic industry. International Trade Commission (ITC) would first investigate and recommend remedies. (f) none of the executive options available for levying tariffs, including Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act, is above judicial scrutiny.

In short, the free hand to bully countries across the table using the unrestricted tariffs card has been severely curtailed. The 18% tariff on Indian exports to US in the yet to be signed US-India trade deal is unsustainable and ought to be re-negotiated. 

Modi’s China syndrome

From laying the red carpet for Jinping on the banks of Sabarmati in September 2014, unmindful of his own laal aankh advise to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, to the opportunistic huddle with Jinping and Putin in Tianjin in August 2025, apparently to send a message to Trump that India has options, it has been an essay in conciliation of China by Modi.

As China refuses to accommodate the Modi government’s stand on the need to return to status quo ante prior to Galwan in 2020, the standoff with People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in Ladakh is sought to be underplayed. This conciliatory approach is in stark contrast to Indira Gandhi’s quiet but determined stance vis a vis China, which she did not visit even once in the 16 years that she was prime minister. 

Modi’s China syndrome consists of: this obsession with China; his fear and awe of China marked by acceleration of trade and commerce with China on the one hand and deliberate obfuscation of loss of territory under the veil of ‘buffer zone’ (to which Naravane also seems to be a party) on the other; and this all-encompassing ‘let’s move on mindset’ as if nothing adverse has happened in Ladakh. The core of this evasive strategy is not to allow a discussion on Ladakh standoff in parliament either directly, or indirectly through a discussion on Naravane’s unpublished memoirs. 

Need for national unity

The politicisation by Rahul Gandhi of Modi govt’s carte blanche “jo uchit sumjho wo karo” as constituting an abdication of the responsibility to give clear directions to the Army is a one-sided interpretation.

LoP in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi speaks during the Budget session of Parliament in New Delhi on February 11, 2026. Photo: Sansad TV via PTI.

It feeds on Naravane’s questionable spin to what can arguably be seen as a free hand given to the Army chief. But if Modi does not allow discussion because he fears annoying China and derailing possible modus vivendi on the border standoff, then the Opposition’s narrative will only deepen by default. 

Even a possible expulsion of Rahul Gandhi from parliament would achieve nothing, and only make him a martyr. Modi’s single narrative – Nehru is responsible for everything – has been eclipsed by the poignant reality: we were not ready in 1962 and we are not ready now. That is a poor reflection on all governments at the Centre since 1962.

Modi should show statesmanship and allow full debate on the Chinese intrusion in Ladakh, and bite the bullet of forging national unity to meet the China challenge. The Opposition in parliament will have to hold the government’s hand and cast aside petty political opportunism. Modi can and must break the China syndrome.

Rahul Singh is a former civil servant who retired from the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

© The Wire