'Trump Miffed With India Because...': Ex-Envoy Says US-Pakistan Bonhomie A 'Strategic Mistake'
Former Indian High Commissioner to India, Vikas Swarup, said the current bonhomie between the United States and Pakistan is a 'strategic mistake" as Islamabad is a close ally of China, adding that the relationship was tactical in nature and would not last long.
Swarup's remarks came after the United States has strengthened cooperation with Pakistan – which has failed to curb terrorist activities on its soil – in the field of trade and cryptocurrency, while US President Donald Trump imposed 50% tariffs on India's exports, exacerbating tensions between the two strategic partners and sparking backlash from Indian politicians.
Speaking to news agency ANI, the former envoy said Trump was miffed at India for ignoring his so-called role in the ceasefire between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor in May. Trump has been claiming that he used trade as a tool to convince both warring nations to agree to a ceasefire, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi has rebuffed his claims, saying it was Pakistan's DGMO who reached out to his Indian counterpart.
#WATCH | '…If you cave in to a bully then the bully will increase his demands. Then there will be even more demands. So, I think we have done the right thing. India is too large, too proud a country to become a camp follower of any other country. Our strategic autonomy has been… pic.twitter.com/IlqsbHSUBy — ANI (@ANI) August 13, 2025
'We have to understand why these tariffs have been imposed….One, Trump is not happy with India because we are a member of BRICS…he has got this notion that BRICS is an anti-American alliance which is hell-bent on creating an alternative currency to the dollar…he feels that India should not be a member of the BRICS," Swarup said.
The other reason was India's refusal to give Trump the credit for brokering the ceasefire. 'Trump has now said almost 30 times that it was he who got the two countries to stop back from the brink, who stopped a nuclear conflagration in the subcontinent. So, he is miffed that India has not acknowledged his role, whereas Pakistan has not only acknowledged his role but has even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize," he added.
India carried out Operation Sindoor on May 7, striking terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) in response to the barbaric attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on April 22 that claimed 26 lives. The terrorists were part of The Resistance Front (TRF) outfit linked to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
'If You Cave In To A Bully…'
Speaking on the ongoing trade tensions between India and the US, Swarup lauded India's stand of not caving in to the US pressure to provide more access to the country's agriculture and dairy sectors. 'If you cave in to a bully then the bully will increase his demands. Then there will be even more demands. So, I think we have done the right thing," he said.
'India is too large, too proud a country to become a camp follower of any other country. Our strategic autonomy has been the bedrock of our foreign policy right from the 1950s."
He said Trump's softer approach towards Pakistan was because Islamabad had projected itself as a reliable partner by leveraging cryptocurrency and its so-called 'oil reserves", but that did not mean that the US had given up on India. Swarup said the US was using pressure tactics to secure a more favourable deal and that India should not cave in.
US-Pakistan Ties & 'Tariff King'
The former diplomat also said Washington's current relationship with Pakistan was a tactical and short-term one, motivated by financial gain, while India's relationship with the US was much more strategic. 'That is why I personally feel that it is a passing phase. I call it a storm, not a rupture. You just have to wait out the storms. All storms eventually pass."
'I think it's a strategic mistake on the part of the US that you are getting in bed with Pakistan which is in bed with China. China is the US' strategic competitor," he also mentioned.
Regarding Trump's accusations of India's tariffs being too high, Swarup said now the US was the 'tariff king" as India's average tariff was 15.98%, while that of the US is 18.4%. 'Tariffs are bringing in money. They will bring in about $100 billion a year for the US. But the issue is that eventually, who will pay for these tariffs? American consumers."
(with ANI inputs)
view comments
First Published:
August 14, 2025, 10:22 IST
News india 'Trump Miffed With India Because...': Ex-Envoy Says US-Pakistan Bonhomie A 'Strategic Mistake'
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump conveyed Putin's demand for more Ukrainian territory to Zelenskiy, source says
* Trump conveyed Putin's demand for more Ukrainian territory to Zelenskiy, source says Trump and Putin cite progress but offer few details * Putin sticks to Russia's long-held stance on Ukraine * Trump says Zelenskiy 'gotta make a deal' * Source says Putin demanding control of entire Donetsk region * Zelenskiy restates he's willing to meet Putin * Europeans say they will maintain or increase pressure on Russia By Steve Holland, Andrew Osborn and Yuliia Dysa WASHINGTON/MOSCOW/KYIV, - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday Ukraine should make a deal to end the war with Russia because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not", after hosting a summit where Vladimir Putin was reported to have demanded more Ukrainian land. In a subsequent briefing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a source familiar with the discussion cited Trump as saying the Russian leader had offered to freeze most front lines if Kyiv's forces ceded all of Donetsk, the industrial region that is one of Moscow's main targets. Zelenskiy rejected the demand, the source said. Russia already controls a fifth of Ukraine, including about three-quarters of Donetsk province, which it first entered in 2014. Trump also said he had agreed with Putin that a peace deal should be sought without the prior ceasefire that Ukraine and its European allies, until now with U.S. support, have demanded. Zelenskiy said he would meet Trump in Washington on Monday, while Kyiv's European allies welcomed Trump's efforts but vowed to back Ukraine and tighten sanctions on Russia. The source said European leaders had also been invited to attend Monday's talks. Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday, the first U.S.-Russia summit since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, lasted just three hours. "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump posted on Truth Social. RUSSIA LIKELY TO WELCOME TRUMP'S SHIFT His various comments on the meeting will be welcomed in Moscow, which says it wants a full settlement - not a pause - but that this will be complex because positions are "diametrically opposed". Russia's forces have been gradually advancing for months. The war - the deadliest in Europe for 80 years - has killed or wounded well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of mostly Ukrainian civilians, according to analysts. Before the summit, Trump had said he would not be happy unless a ceasefire was agreed on. But afterwards he said that, after Monday's talks with Zelenskiy, "if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin". Monday's talks will evoke memories of a meeting in the White House Oval Office in February, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance gave Zelenskiy a brutal public dressing-down. Zelenskiy said he was willing to meet Putin. But Putin signalled no movement in Russia's long-held positions on the war, and made no mention in public of meeting Zelenskiy. His aide Yuri Ushakov told the Russian state news agency TASS a three-way summit had not been discussed. In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Trump signalled that he and Putin had discussed land transfers and security guarantees for Ukraine, and had "largely agreed". "I think we're pretty close to a deal," he said, adding: "Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say 'no'." Asked what he would advise Zelenskiy to do, Trump said: "Gotta make a deal." "Look, Russia is a very big power, and they're not," he added. NEED FOR SECURITY GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE Zelenskiy has consistently said he cannot concede territory without changes to Ukraine's constitution, and Kyiv sees Donetsk's "fortress cities" such as Sloviansk and Kramatorsk as a bulwark against Russian advances into even more regions. Zelenskiy has also insisted on security guarantees for Kyiv, to deter Russia from invading again in the future. He said he and Trump had discussed "positive signals from the American side" on taking part, and that Ukraine needed a lasting peace, not "just another pause" between Russian invasions. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said the most interesting developments of the summit concerned security guarantees - inspired by the transatlantic NATO alliance's Article 5. "The starting point of the proposal is the definition of a collective security clause that would allow Ukraine to benefit from the support of all its partners, including the USA, ready to take action in case it is attacked again," she said. Putin, who has hitherto opposed involving foreign ground forces, said he agreed with Trump that Ukraine's security must be "ensured". "I would like to hope that the understanding we have reached will allow us to get closer to that goal and open the way to peace in Ukraine," Putin told a briefing where neither leader took questions. "We expect that Kyiv and the European capitals ... will not attempt to disrupt the emerging progress..." For Putin, the very fact of sitting down with Trump represented a victory. He had been ostracised by Western leaders since the start of the war, and just a week earlier had faced a threat of new sanctions from Trump. '1-0 FOR PUTIN' Trump also spoke to European leaders after returning to Washington. Several stressed the need to keep pressure on Russia. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said an end to the war was closer than ever, thanks to Trump, but added: "... until stops his barbaric assault, we will keep tightening the screws on his war machine with even more sanctions." A statement from European leaders said "Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees" and that no limits should be placed on its armed forces or right to seek NATO membership - key Russian demands. Some European politicians and commentators were scathing. "Putin got his red carpet treatment with Trump, while Trump got nothing. As feared: no ceasefire, no peace," Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to Washington, posted on X. "No real progress – a clear 1-0 for Putin – no new sanctions. For the Ukrainians: nothing. For Europe: deeply disappointing." Both Russia and Ukraine carried out overnight air attacks, a daily occurrence, while fighting raged on the front line. Trump told Fox he would postpone imposing tariffs on China for buying Russian oil, but that he might have to "think about it" in two or three weeks. He ended his remarks after the summit by telling Putin: "We'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon." "Next time in Moscow," a smiling Putin responded in English. Trump said he might "get a little heat on that one" but that he could "possibly see it happening". This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
3 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.
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Could India have handled President Trump better?
The Narendra Modi government converted an economically disastrous idea such as demonetisation into a political win. It dealt with a brutal Covid-19 pandemic that took millions of lives and devastated livelihoods, yet emerged politically unscathed. The Modi government played with fire on land acquisition and farm laws, yet pulled back without getting burnt. And despite its limited success in pulling off a manufacturing revolution to generate jobs on scale, it has remained politically dominant and maintained its multi-class and multi-caste alliance. The Modi government confronted a serious national security crisis with a far more powerful adversary, China, and had to redefine the idea of normalcy for the sake of peace, yet it did not pay a domestic political price. India dealt with a highly polarised West-Russia landscape and a China that was either actively hostile or passively aggressive or absent, yet pulled off a spectacular G20 presidency. It had to secure its interests with diametrically different American administrations with almost opposing priorities, and yet it was able to be friends with the sitting administration while still having enough goodwill with the preceding power constellation. How did a government that has been so adept in dealing with the domestic and international landscape, and overcoming its own missteps and mistakes, fumble in reading the US? How did a government so sharp in reading danger signals not manage friction when there were clear possibilities of trouble with the US from earlier this year, but definitely from May 10 when Donald Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire? How is it that in over 90 days since then, India, with all its equities and power, has failed to shift the conversation or make enough inroads into Trump's world to find a meeting ground while keeping to its redlines? To be sure, it has been difficult to predict the US president's next move, but there are countries that have managed to get their (limited) way. Let there be no doubt about the severity of the crisis. India is worse off among all the regional competitors for investment, and in its own immediate neighbourhood in terms of access to the US market. This has implications way beyond trade, for suddenly, the signal to American capital about India is of uncertainty, despite the charms of its huge market and extensive talent pool. This puts under strain India's broader economic modernisation roadmap that hinges at least partly, if not substantially, on western investment and technology partnerships to boost manufacturing and generate mass employment. India is confronting repeated blows against its core strategic concerns: Trump appears more than willing to make long-term strategic concessions for a deal with China. Pakistan's comeback to the Washington DC theatre, even if it is only in the short-term as some pundits believe, is arguably on a more broad-based diplomatic, economic and strategic footing than even 2001 when it was driven by the narrow counter terror frame in Afghanistan. And, India is paying a price for US-Russia tensions in ways that it hasn't for decades. India is also staring at a crisis in the people-to-people relationship, given the challenges in getting student visas, the backlash against H1Bs in Trump's base and intense spurt in anti-Indian and anti-Hindu racist rhetoric from the White supremacist Right. The biggest crisis, of course, is there are no easy pathways out of it anymore. The more time has passed, the more rhetoric has got meaner, the more demands have escalated and become public, the less political space there is to make compromises. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. There are structural factors at play, for core contradictions on trade openness and relationships with third countries have come to the fore. There are personality-centric issues at play, especially on the American side with a president who revels in sharpening contradictions with his own country's institutions, the international system, and allies and partners in the quest for political or personal or financial wins. And, there are unanticipated variables and events that have affected the chessboard. But none of this can take away from the fact that the government may have missed out on multiple opportunities to manage Trump. This is particularly striking since the political leadership has usually been alert in responding creatively in difficult situations, managing narratives, engaging with all kinds of interlocutors, unleashing diplomatic charm in the external domain or pre-empting rivals by appropriating political issues in the domestic domain, finding wins-wins when possible and framing compromises as wins when necessary. To be sure, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta has eloquently and wisely argued, the Trumpian project is an imperial project and dignity is essential. But avoiding being in the direct firing line of the imperial project was in national interest and the government's core diplomatic duty. And, yes, there may have been ways to do it without compromising on India's historic stance on third-party mediation, or on core interests of small farmers, or on Indian manufacturing potential. And, this was possible because a childishly transparent, vain and corrupt Trump world is always open to a better deal and packaging has always been more central to his politics than substance. To return to the puzzle then, what happened? A detailed empirical account will only emerge once the crisis passes, actors move on from their current roles, and files are declassified. And even a more specific discussion on who got what wrong and when and what could have been done need not detain us here. One school of thought is there was a problem with the personnel chosen to make judgments on the ground and offer advice. Another is that India may have genuinely misread the problem, or been unable to anticipate second or third order consequences of Trumpian rupture. A third suggests that there may have been a problem with the channels selected for execution of goals; India's adversaries and critics have been constantly in Trump's ear while India's perspective has failed to register a mark. It could well be a combination; the problems with personnel, judgment and execution, may have resulted in a problem in decision making. And, to be fair, all of this may have been exacerbated by domestic concerns, not just of the man (and woman) on the street, but the political Opposition. After 11 years, this is the biggest challenge facing Narendra Modi, and he may want to consider a reset. It could start with foreign policy but a full Kamraj-plan style reset across the party and government may not be a bad idea at this time, especially given the ambitious agenda the Prime Minister laid out in his Independence Day speech. This could bring fresh energy and ideas and shatter vested interests to help India prepare for the coming political, economic and strategic storms. For coming they are.
