Amid US tariff friction, India engages China and Russia in high-stakes diplomacy
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is slated to visit India on August 18 for talks under the Special Representatives (SR) mechanism, a bilateral channel primarily aimed at managing and resolving the longstanding border dispute. National Security Advisor Ajit Doval will represent India. While the mechanism has been dormant in recent years due to post-Galwan tensions, this meeting is being viewed as a signal of intent from both sides to re-engage cautiously, but constructively. Wang is set to call on Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well.
Relations between New Delhi and Beijing have been severely strained since the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes in eastern Ladakh. Wang Yi's visit may pave the way for a broader normalisation process and building of mutual trusts.
More significantly, it sets the stage for a possible meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin on August 31, Modi's first visit to China in seven years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 minutes ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
ISL clubs warn AIFF of possibility of their shutting down entirely if current impasse not resolved
Eleven Indian Super League (ISL) clubs have warned the All India Football Federation (AIFF) that they 'face the real possibility of shutting down entirely' if the ongoing impasse regarding the future of the top-tier domestic competition is not resolved soon. In a letter written to AIFF President Kalyan Chaubey, the clubs said that the crisis arising out of the non-renewal of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the national federation and the ISL organisers FSDL has 'paralysed professional football in India'. 'Over past 11 years, through sustained investment and coordinated effort, clubs have built youth development systems, training infrastructure, community outreach programmes, and professional teams that have elevated India's footballing credibility both domestically and internationally,' the clubs wrote in the letter sent on Friday. 'This progress is now in imminent danger of collapse. The current standstill has created immediate and severe consequences. With operations suspended and no certainty on league continuity, several clubs face the real possibility of shutting down entirely.' The crisis surfaced after Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), the ISL organisers as well as AIFF's commercial partner, put the 2025-26 season 'on hold' on July 11 due to uncertainty over the renewal of the MRA, prompting at least three clubs to either pause first-team operations or suspend player and staff salaries. 'The 2025-26 ISL season is at risk of not taking place at all. This is not merely an administrative deadlock — it is an existential crisis for Indian football. We write to you in the gravest of circumstances,' the clubs wrote. 'The trust painstakingly built with fans, sponsors, investors, international footballing bodies over the past decade will be irreparably damaged if the league remains in limbo.' The letter was signed by Bengaluru FC, Hyderabad FC, Odisha FC, Chennaiyin FC, Jamshedpur FC, FC Goa, Kerala Blasters FC, Punjab FC, NorthEast United FC, Mumbai City FC and Mohammedan Sporting. Kolkata heavyweights Mohun Bagan Super Giant and East Bengal did not the sign the letter. Detailing the risk of club closures and livelihood loss, the letter said, 'More than 2000 direct livelihoods — players, coaches, medical staff, analysts, kit managers, groundsmen, administrative staff — hang in the balance, alongside countless indirect livelihoods dependent on the league. 'Clubs face a season where revenue from tickets, merchandise and other avenues will be reduced to zero. Potential sponsors have already started backing out, looking at the scenario that the ISL is in. 'This is a huge financial blow that clubs will not recover from this year and it will affect payout of salaries to players and staff in the immediate future, besides making several stakeholders contemplate a complete and permanent shut-down of their respective clubs.' The clubs said the impasse will also impact India's readiness for international matches, saying 'without a functioning league, our national team will be severely disadvantaged in upcoming AFC and FIFA tournaments'. They also said that without the ISL, they will not be able to play a minimum number of competitive matches for participation in continental competitions, thereby risking suspension of Indian clubs from AFC tournaments. 'The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) mandates a minimum number of competitive matches for participation in continental competitions. Without ISL, this requirement cannot be met, putting India at risk of suspension from all AFC and FIFA tournaments,' the clubs said. 'FIFPRO, the global players' union, has already apprised FIFA of the situation, increasing the likelihood of external scrutiny and possible sanctions.' On Thursday, the AIFF had agreed to mention the raging issue concerning the ISL before the Supreme Court on Monday. The apex court has reserved its judgement in the case relating to the draft constitution of the AIFF. The decision to apprise the SC of the crisis situation was taken after a meeting of the legal representatives of the clubs and the AIFF. In fact, a reliable source said that the AIFF is willing to file a written application if the Supreme Court asks for one. 'We fully appreciate that related matters are before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, from the record of recent hearings, it appears that the immediacy and scale of the crisis have not been clearly conveyed to the Hon'ble Court,' the clubs said. 'The human cost, the threat of clubs folding, the risk of losing our place in AFC/FIFA competitions, and the reputational harm to India's footballing image demand urgent action on our part. 'We therefore respectfully request the AIFF, as the regulator of Indian football, to urgently mention this matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Monday, 18 August 2025, and to append this letter to present the unified concerns of all ISL clubs before the Hon'ble Court.' The clubs said they are ready to support the AIFF in the case through their counsels though they are not parties to the proceedings before the SC. 'Immediate collective action is the only way to preserve Indian football's future, safeguard livelihoods, and protect the country's standing in the global football community. We remain committed to working alongside the AIFF to achieve a resolution.'
India.com
5 minutes ago
- India.com
Reliance Industries Gross Debt Rises 7 pc At Rs 3.47 Lakh Crore In FY25, Net Debt Hits Rs 1.17 Lakh Crore
New Delhi: Reliance Industries Limited's (RIL) gross debt and net debt for the financial year 2024-25 stood at Rs 3.47 lakh crore (USD 40.7 billion) and Rs 1.17 lakh crore (USD 13.7 billion) respectively, according to the company's integrated Annual Report 2024-25. The company had registered Rs 3.24 lakh crore in gross debt in FY24. Despite a strong internal cash flow generation, India's biggest private sector conglomerate's leverage remains noteworthy, underscoring the capital-intensive nature of its operations. "Robust internal cashflow generation supported investments in growth opportunities across business, while maintaining a conservative balance sheet and investment grade credit ratings," the company said in its Annual Report. Meanwhile, the Mukesh Ambani-led company reported capital expenditure for the financial year at Rs 1,31,107 crore ($15.3 billion). In FY 2023-24, capex stood at Rs 1,31,769 crore. According to the company's annual report, in FY25, investments were largely directed towards new O2C projects, Retail store expansion, augmenting Digital Services infrastructure and building manufacturing assets in New Energy. Meanwhile, RIL's standalone revenue was at Rs 5,57,163 crore ($65.2 billion), lower by 3.1 per cent as compared to Rs 5,74,956 crore in FY24. EBITDA for the standalone entity fell 14.2 per cent to Rs 74,163 crore ($8.7 billion) from Rs 86,393 crore for the year-ago period, the company said. Despite strong coverage from leading brokerages after the Indian conglomerate reported better-than-expected earnings in the first quarter of the current fiscal year (Q1 FY26), RIL shares fell more than 7% over the past 30 days. According to market analysts, the stock is currently in a corrective phase because the Mukesh Ambani-led company has suffered a significant setback as a result of US President Donald Trump's crackdown on India's imports of Russian oil. In order to process the cheap crude at its massive oil refinery in Jamnagar, Gujarat, RIL was a major importer. However, the shares may start attracting investors from next week as the US hinted at not imposing additional 25 per cent tariffs on the import of Russian oil. Brokerages like Morgan Stanley, Motilal Oswal, Novuma, and Macquarie have either maintained or increased their rating for RIL's stock after the company reported a strong 78 per cent year-over-year increase in its net profit at Rs 26,994 crore in Q1.
