India has to be contend with political challenges from ‘China, America, Pakistan' now, says Congress
Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said that President Trump is "piling it on India".
In an X post, Mr. Ramesh wrote, "Since May 10, he has claimed 30 times that he stopped Operation Sindoor. These claims were made in four different countries. On June 18, he hosted the Pakistan Army Chief and the orchestrator of the Pahalgam terror attacks for lunch at the White House."
"On July 30, he imposed a 25% tariff on U.S. imports from India plus a penalty on India's oil and defence purchases from Russia. In addition, sanctions on at least six Indian companies were imposed for engaging with Iran," he said.
On July 30, Mr. Trump also announced that the U.S. will help Pakistan explore and develop its oil and gas reserves, Mr. Ramesh said, adding that this comes on top of his full-throated support to Pakistan receiving financial assistance from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
"Prime Minister Modi once spoke of the TOP (Tomato, Onion, Potato) challenge in prices. Now India has to contend with the political challenge arising out of CAP (China, America, Pakistan)," Mr. Ramesh said.
"He (Modi) invested very heavily in his personal friendship with President Trump, as he had done earlier with President Xi. Both have the full measure of the man now — someone who can be managed easily by playing to his gigantic ego and self-obsession," the Congress leader said.
The remarks came a day after the U.S. President announced the imposition of 25% tariff on all goods coming from India starting August 1, plus an unspecified penalty on the country for buying Russian crude oil and military equipment.
The announcement is being seen as a pressure tactic to get New Delhi to agree to demands made by the US, which has, in recent days, got favourable trade deals with major partners like Japan, the UK and the European Union.
In a social media post, Trump termed India's trade policies as "most strenuous and obnoxious".
"All things not good! India will therefore be paying a tariff of 25 per cent, plus a penalty for the above, starting on August first," Mr. Trump wrote.
The penalty was announced as India has made large purchases of oil and military equipment from Russia. India is the first country Trump has slapped a penalty over Russian imports. Earlier, he had imposed high tariffs on China but refrained from levying any penalty despite Beijing being Russia's largest oil importer.
On Wednesday (July 30, 2025), the Opposition parties slammed the government for the U.S.' imposition of the tariff and penalties on Indian imports, and said that Prime Minister Modi's friendship with the US president meant little.
Mr. Ramesh had said that Modi should take inspiration from former prime minister Indira Gandhi and stand up to the president of the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
2008 Malegaon case: Congress attempted to fabricate 'saffron terror' narrative to humiliate Hindus and for vote-bank politics, says BJP
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Friday (August 1, 2025) cited the statement of a former Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) officer, who was involved in the investigation into the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast, to allege that the then Congress government had attempted to 'fabricate a narrative of Saffron terror to humiliate Hindus and for vote-bank politics'. In a statement to the media, former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar has claim that pressure was exerted on him to arrest Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat. VIDEO | Was asked to apprehend Mohan Bhagwat in Malegaon blast case, claims ex-ATS official. Former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar says, "I did not investigate the Malegaon bomb blast case for which the verdict came yesterday. But I was involved in probing some absconding accused in… — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 1, 2025 At a press conference, BJP spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra referred to Mr. Mujawar's remarks to accuse the Congress party of doing 'vindictive politics', stating that 'the Gandhi family was intent on defaming Sanatan'. He said the recent statement by senior Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan — that 'terrorism has no religion' — was a 'well-worn phrase of Congress's appeasement politics'. Stating that Mr. Mujawar had made an important disclosure, the BJP leader said: 'He revealed that top ATS officers and some influential figures in the then government pressured him to push forward the 'saffron terror' narrative at all costs and to arrest RSS Sarsanghchalak Shri Mohan Bhagwat under that conspiracy, even though his name was nowhere in the chargesheet or the investigation....' 'But Mehboob stated that he would not act outside the framework of the Constitution or damage the country's democratic fabric. After this refusal, his own senior officers framed him with false and serious charges. Some allegations were imposed on him, resulting in his promotion being blocked. Later, Mujawar approached the court, where he was completely exonerated. The court also ruled that all allegations against him were baseless and malicious,' said Mr. Patra. 'The Congress government at the time had reached new heights of vindictive mentality. Individuals associated with the BJP, followers of Hinduism, and senior functionaries of the RSS were deliberately humiliated, arrested, and targeted for personal revenge. The Congress was operating in a completely retaliatory mode, and all of this was happening at the behest of the Gandhi family,' he alleged. He said former Union Minister Sushilkumar Shinde was the first to use the term 'saffron terror' during a Congress party convention. 'When asked why he said so and whether it was appropriate, he smiled and said: 'I now feel what I said was wrong, but I only did what my party high command told me'...who is the Congress high command? In the Congress party, the high command is not an institution — it is just one family, the Gandhi family. There is only one command, but many faces behind it — Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra,' he said. On Thursday, in the Malegaon case, a Mumbai NIA court acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit.
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
