Region 
 

New Delhi

Jaadu Ki Jhappi

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hug diplomacy may look dull or misfired, but his personal gestures do not damage India’s interests

By Ambassador Sanaullah | November 2025


Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hugging style has become a recognizable trait of his personal diplomacy. He warmly embraces world leaders left and right, as if they were his lifelong friends. He has remained undeterred — whether it was U.S. President Barack Obama, during Obama’s visits to India and at various summits; Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, or Shinzo Abe of Japan. His prolonged, firm embrace with Donald Trump at the G20 and “Howdy, Modi” events in Houston was so theatrical that even Trump, the king of the virtual world, was momentarily floored. Modi did the same with French President Emmanuel Macron, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, and others.

Although leaders have long used similar gestures in diplomacy to convey warmth and build personal chemistry, the frequency and duration of Modi’s hugs were unprecedented. In earlier times, even extended handshakes were considered unusual. The personal gesture may fail at the body-language level but can still coexist with long-term transactional success — showing that in diplomacy, symbolism matters, but structure endures. Personal camaraderie draws headlines, but policy outcomes are mixed: no major trade deal, yet security cooperation advanced in the case of Trump, including the second administration.

Where did Modi pick up this art, or when did he decide to use this local tradition to display sincerity and goodwill with global leaders exuberantly? He was not commonly known to have used such gestures earlier. Perhaps he was inspired by the Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. films, which appeared around 2003 — after some time, he moved from Gujarat to central politics — and decided to adopt the “magic hug” (jaadu ki jhappi) as a symbol of warmth. Nothing can be said about this point, but he now employs Munna Bhai’s jaadu ki jhappi freely with political allies and rivals alike, both in Parliament and at public functions. A famous example was his embrace of Rahul Gandhi in 2018 during the no-confidence motion.

The Modi–Trump era (2017–2020) makes an interesting study. The results were paradoxical. The period combined personal warmth — the famous hugs and the “Howdy, Modi” spectacle — with deep policy friction, especially over trade and tariffs. Modi’s “hug diplomacy,” while famously theatrical and successful in some cases (Obama), it encountered limits with several others. Still, India maintained or even improved relations through institutional and strategic channels.

Modi hugged Chinese President Xi Jinping warmly during summits in Ahmedabad (2014) and at Wuhan (2018). Xi remained visibly stiff, hands at his sides — the Chinese style discourages unsolicited physical contact. Modi’s personal rapport did not prevent the 2020 border clash in Ladakh, which was the worst in decades. Hug diplomacy failed symbolically, but dialogue through BRICS and the SCO continued pragmatically for trade and regional coordination.

Culturally a little awkward, Modi’s semi-embrace of German Chancellor Angela Merkel during her Delhi visit in 2015 was noticed but not condemned. Despite the awkward gesture, economic and technological cooperation expanded, and Germany remained a key investor in India. The tight and prolonged embrace with French President Macron in 2018 — which French officials found unusual but not offensive — helped yield the Rafale jet deal and a joint Indo-Pacific strategy. In the same year, Modi attempted an enthusiastic hug with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who responded politely but coolly amid political tensions over Sikh separatism. Modi sensed the restraint and later avoided a bear hug in subsequent meetings. Diplomatic relations stayed correct but strained; personal warmth was absent, yet trade and diaspora channels remained open.


Modi and Benjamin Netanyahu indulged in repeated hugs, hand-holding, and even beach strolls. Here, hug diplomacy succeeded completely — visible warmth matched record defence and technology cooperation. With Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Modi shared prolonged embraces and car rides together, personally receiving Abe in Ahmedabad. In this case, hug diplomacy was also successful: the strategic partnership deepened, and Japan invested heavily in Indian infrastructure.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Karen Yarhi-Milo, in their September opinion column “The Peril of Getting Too Personal in Foreign Policy” (The New York Times), rightly note that personality can open doors, but it cannot rewrite geopolitics. Incidentally, their article begins with an episode from June 17, 2025, when President Trump called Prime Minister Modi, expecting him to showcase his trademark personal diplomacy. It never happened. Both leaders had over-personalized their relations, failing to recognize the limits of human connection and flattery amid the hard realities of national interests. There is always a danger that once-thriving personal ties between leaders may fade when policy differences arise. The tariff war between India and the United States illustrates this point. Nevertheless, the jaadu ki jhappi lingers — at least for Trump, who still fondly calls Modi a friend, even while deriding India’s economy as “dead.” His deal-making instinct and America’s transactional foreign policy have not entirely eroded the warmth he once felt at “Namaste Trump” in Gujarat.

Personal gestures — including special luncheons, allowing the use of personal aircraft from Saudi Arabia to New York, or excessive flattery — have only a short shelf life

One salient lesson is that Modi’s hug diplomacy may presently look dull or misfired, but his personal gestures did not damage India’s interests. Trump’s “America First” policy targeted all trade surpluses with the U.S., including India’s, showing that only sustained institutional engagement preserves strategic relations meaningfully. Yet, no real erosion is evident when we unpack their strategic ties. The U.S. Congress, Pentagon, and the U.S. State Department continued to treat India as a key Indo-Pacific partner.

The long-term structural accords — the “foundational agreements” for the U.S.–India defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, and interoperability (LEMOA, 2016; COMCASA, 2018; and BECA, 2020) — remain intact. The tariff war’s effect was surface-deep. Trump never questioned India’s strategic value. In reality, the partnership broadened: new intelligence-sharing mechanisms, joint military exercises such as Malabar and Tiger Triumph, and the first 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue (2018) all took place in this period. Modi, meanwhile, avoided public criticism of Trump’s tariffs, emphasizing instead their personal rapport — “Friend Donald.”

There is a diplomatic lesson for Pakistan. Personal gestures — including special luncheons, allowing the use of personal aircraft from Saudi Arabia to New York, or excessive flattery — have only a short shelf life. Pakistan has successfully broken through its near diplomatic isolation. India seems to be in a bind, but it is sustaining that bind skillfully. It has not ceased its diplomatic efforts to create instability so that Pakistan may not wholly reap the benefits of expanding engagement. The latest evidence to this effect comes from the ministerial-level Kabul–India engagement in New Delhi. The focus should remain on the structures and contents that usually endure in diplomacy.

Read More