Partnership with the US has weathered several challenges, says MEA after Trump's 25 pc tariff on India; expresses confidence of ties moving forward
Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said at the regular media briefing that the bilateral partnership with the United States has weathered several transitions and challenges and the two countries share a comprehensive global strategic partnership.
Jaiswal's remarks came in response to questions on way forward for bilateral ties with the United States after US President Donald Trump decided to impose a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods and a penalty for importing oil from Russia.
Responding to a volley of questions on Trump's decision, Jaiswal said the government has already made a statement on the issue.
'India and the United States share a comprehensive global strategic partnership anchored in shared interests, democratic values, and robust people-to-people ties. This partnership has weathered several transitions and challenges. We remain focused on the substantive agenda that our two countries have committed to and are confident that the relationship will continue to move forward,' he said.
Asked about media reports that some Indian oil companies have stopped taking oil from Russia, Jaiswal said India has made clear its approach on the issue.
'You are aware of our broad approach to energy sourcing requirements, that we look at what is available in the market and the prevailing global situation. We are not aware of any specifics,' he said.
On the US announcing sanctions on Indian companies involved in trading with Iran, Jaiswal said 'We have taken note of the sanctions, we are looking into it.'
Jaiswal declined to comment on Trump's remarks that India may purchase oil from Pakistan one day. 'I have no comments to offer in this matter,' he said.
The government told the Parliament on Thursday that US President Donald Trump has announced a reciprocal tariff on Indian goods, and it is examining the impact of the recent events and will take all necessary steps to safeguard national interest.
Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal made a statement in the lower House of Parliament a day after Trump announced the tariff. He later made similar statement in the Rajya Sabha. Goyal's remarks came a day after the government issued a statement on the US decision to impose tariffs.
On Wednesday, Trump announced the imposition of 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods and a penalty for importing Russian oil, even as there were hopes of an interim India-US trade that would have otherwise helped avoid elevated tariffs.
Goyal said the Ministry of Commerce and Industry is holding talks with exporters, industries and all stakeholders and gathering information on their assessment of this issue.
'On April 2, 2025, the US President issued an executive order on reciprocal tariffs...ten per cent baseline duty in effect since April 2025. With a 10% baseline tariff, a total of 26% tariff was announced for India. Full country-specific additional tariff was scheduled to come into effect on April 9 but on April 10 this was extended initially for 90 days and then extended till August 1 2025,' Goyal said.
'Government gives utmost priority to the safeguarding of welfare of farmers, labourers, entrepreneurs, industrialists, exporters, MSMEs and stakeholders of the industrial sector. We will take all necessary steps to safeguard our national interest. The Government is confident that we will continue our swift journey of inclusive and consistent development towards the goal of Viksit Bharat 2047. Aatmanirbharta ki ore Bharat aatmavishwas se badh raha hai,' he added.
The Union Minister said that in less than a decade, India came out of the 'Fragile Five' economies and it has now become the fastest-growing economy in the world.
'On the basis of the hard work of reforms, farmers, MSMEs and industrialists, we have come in the top five economies of the world from the 11th largest economy. It is expected that we will be the third-largest economy in a few years. Today, global institutions and economists see India as a bright spot in the global economy,' he said.
Goyal said India and the US started talks for a just, balanced and mutually beneficial Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) in March this year, and the goal of this was to finish the first stage of the Agreement by October-November 2025.
On April 2, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order for reciprocal tariffs on various trade partners, imposing varied tariffs in the range of 10-50 per cent. He subsequently kept the tariffs in abeyance for 90 days, while imposing a 10 per cent baseline tariff. The deadline was to end on July 9, and the US administration later pushed it ahead to August 1.
In March 2025, India and the US initiated talks for a BTA, with the countries stating that the first tranche would be signed by the fall of 2025. (October-November).Talks took place in New Delhi and the US, and there have also been virtual meetings.In its statement on Wednesday, Commerce and Industry Ministry said that it as taken note of a statement by the US President on bilateral trade and the Government is studying its implications.
'India and the US have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months. We remain committed to that objective. The Government attaches the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs, and MSMEs,' the statement said.'The Government will take all steps necessary to secure our national interest, as has been the case with other trade agreements including the latest Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the UK,' it added.
There were some reservations from the Indian side on the US demand for opening up the agricultural and dairy sectors for the US. Agriculture and dairy are critical for India as these two sectors provide livelihood opportunities to a large section of its people.US President Donald Trump had imposed reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries with which the US has a trade deficit. Since assuming office for his second term, President Trump has reiterated his stance on tariff reciprocity, emphasising that the United States will match tariffs imposed by other countries, including India, to 'ensure fair trade'. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Canadian delegation heads to Mexico to build trade opportunities
With trade negotiations with the U.S. seemingly at a standstill, a delegation of Canadian ministers has headed to Mexico to establish a more direct trade relationship.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Alaska Sen. Murkowski toys with bid for governor, defends vote supporting Trump's tax breaks package
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, speaking with Alaska reporters Monday, toyed with the idea of running for governor and defended her recent high-profile decision to vote in support of President Donald Trump's tax breaks and spending cuts bill. Murkowski, speaking from Anchorage, said 'sure' when asked if she has considered or is considering a run for governor. She later said her response was 'a little bit flippant' because she gets asked that question so often. 'Would I love to come home? I have to tell you, of course I would love to come home,' she said. 'I am not making any decisions about anything, because my responsibility to Alaskans is my job in the Senate right now.' Several Republicans already have announced plans to run in next year's governor's race, including Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom. Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy is not eligible to seek a third consecutive term. Alaska has an open primary system and ranked choice voting in general elections. Murkowski is not up for reelection until 2028. A centrist, Murkowski has become a closely watched figure in a sharply divided Congress. She has at times been at odds with her party in her criticism of Trump and blasted by some GOP voters as a 'Republican in name only.' But her decision to support Trump's signature bill last month also frustrated others in a state where independents comprise the largest number of registered voters. She previously described her decision-making process around the bill as 'agonizing.' On Monday, she said it was clear to her the bill was not only a priority of Trump's but also that it was going to pass, so it became important to her to help make it as advantageous to the state as she could. 'So I did everything within my power — as one lawmaker from Alaska — to try to make sure that the most vulnerable in our state would not be negatively impacted,' she said. 'And I had a hard choice to make, and I think I made the right choice for Alaskans.'
Japan Forward
2 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
