Indian PM Modi pledges farmer protection and self-reliance amid US trade tensions
Modi made the remarks during his Independence Day speech at the Red Fort, addressing concerns over US tariffs on Indian exports.
'Farmers, fishermen, cattle rearers are our top priorities,' Modi said in his annual address.
'Modi will stand like a wall against any policy that threatens their interests.'
The prime minister did not directly mention US President Donald Trump's recent tariff hike on Indian goods.
Last week, Trump imposed a 25% additional tariff, citing India's Russian oil imports, escalating trade tensions.
The new duties could raise tariffs on some Indian exports to as high as 50%.
Modi has previously hinted at protecting farmers' interests, even at personal cost.
He urged businesses to promote locally made 'Swadeshi' products to strengthen India's economy.
India aims to launch domestically produced semiconductor chips by year-end.
Exploration for critical minerals is underway at over 1,200 locations to reduce import reliance.
US tariffs threaten India's $87 billion export market, impacting textiles, footwear, and gems.
Some Modi supporters have called for boycotting US firms like McDonald's and Apple.
Trade talks collapsed over disputes on farm sector access and Russian oil purchases.
India's foreign ministry expressed hope for US ties based on mutual respect. - Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Trump supports Putin's Ukraine land proposal amid ongoing conflict
WARSAW: US President Donald Trump has expressed support for a Russian proposal allowing Moscow to take full control of two Ukrainian regions while freezing the front line in two others, according to a source. The source familiar with the matter stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'de facto demands that Ukraine leave Donbas,' referring to the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. 'Trump is inclined to support it,' the source added. Trump discussed the issue with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders following his Friday talks with Putin. 'The Ukrainian president refused to leave Donbas,' the source revealed. Zelensky has firmly opposed territorial concessions, citing Ukraine's constitution, but remains open to trilateral discussions involving Trump and Putin. The New York Times reported that two senior European officials confirmed Trump's backing of Putin's plan to end the war by ceding territory to Russia. The Financial Times noted that Putin had conveyed to Trump his willingness to freeze the frontline if core demands were met. AFP's source indicated that US officials believe Putin would halt offensives in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia if Russia's conditions are accepted. 'But de facto it all will depend on Putin's word of honour,' the source cautioned. Russia previously annexed four Ukrainian regions in 2022 despite not fully controlling them militarily. Russian forces currently occupy nearly all of Lugansk and large parts of Donetsk, including regional capitals. Zaporizhzhia and Kherson remain partially under Ukrainian control, with key cities still held by Kyiv. Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea set a precedent for its territorial claims in Ukraine. - AFP
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Editorial: The age of nationalism
A woman selling Indonesian national flags on a street in Banda Aceh ahead of the country's Independence Day on August 17. — AFP IN the waning years of the 20th century, at the moment when globalisation reached its apogee, a virulent strain of nationalism appeared on the horizon. A response to the exogenous shocks brought about by globalisation, this brand of nationalism sought to reassert a nationhood defined by the ability to cultivate one's own traditions. And since traditions can be a malleable concept, the easiest way for nationalists is to set up boundaries based on ethnicity and race. If needs be, the delineated boundaries of that nationalism have to be defended with military power. Hence, the link between nationalism and militarism. In recent years, we have witnessed the resurgence of this toxic strain of nationalism, even in the most cosmopolitan countries and regions of the world. In the United States, President Donald Trump's desire to purify the country from 'alien' culture has led to the deployment of military and paramilitary forces to raid and deport immigrants to detention centres in foreign countries. The desire to build a monolithic culture has also led to the shutting down of the discourse of diversity and multiculturalism that has long been the feature of an immigrant culture like the US. In Israel, an extreme form of ethno-nationalism has not only led to an absolute militarisation of society, it also has resulted in what the world now recognises as a genocide. Today in Gaza more than two million people are being starved and massacred on a daily basis as a predictable outcome of years of dehumanising a group of people on the other side of the wall. No less worrying is the trend in Europe, the place where an experiment with ethno-nationalism ended up in the extermination of six million Jews. A series of public opinion polls published earlier this week found that for the first time in modern history, far-right parties are simultaneously topping the polls in Europe's three main economies of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The experience of Italy, where a far-right party governs in moderation, should be enough to calm many fears, but these parties' nativist rhetoric and programs could set back the work of promoting just and equitable societies, a project that is now a distant dream on the other side of the Atlantic. As Indonesia celebrates its 80th year of independence today, it is high time for everyone in the country to reflect on the state of its nationalism. With the Red and White flying high, military parades becoming more frequent and the government playing an ever-greater role in the economy, it looks like Indonesia is not immune to the global trend. And in a place where the dominant ideology has mostly been defined by flag-waving politicians and military generals, it is easy to fall into the trap of ethno-nationalism. These days, we hear a more and more familiar refrain of 'foreign intervention' or 'plot against the nation' uttered by those in the government whenever there are protests against government policies. The imagined threat of war and/or foreign intervention has become the pretext for the military to expand its presence not only geographically by spreading out in more regions but also bureaucratically, with military personnel playing a direct role in civilian affairs. There is also a growing tendency for an 'economic nationalism' whereby the state decides to play a major role in the economy, pumping money and resources into programmes and projects to create growth. Another feature of this economic nationalism is the decision by the state to control resources deemed crucial for the improvement of people's welfare. Almost 30 years ago, at the start of the Reform era, Indonesia started a new project to tone down some of the most virulent strains of nationalism by introducing regional autonomy, military reform and setting up guardrails around individual rights and liberties. That project is still unfinished and the next two decades will be crucial in deciding what kind of nation future generations will inhabit in the next century of its existence. — The Jakarta Post/ANN
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
The US will regret throwing India under the bus
US president Donald Trump has thrown India under the bus. After months of affronts and barbs, Washington now treats New Delhi more as foe than friend, undermining a relationship that several American administrations – including Trump's first – tried to strengthen, not least to contain China in the Indo-Pacific. Instead, India will now distance itself from the United States and draw closer to Russia and even China. By diplomatic standards, the deterioration has been abrupt. Contrast the vibe between Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on two occasions this year. In February, Modi visited Trump in the White House, and the pair looked like two populist peas in a pod. Gushing about his MAGA (Make America Great Again) host, Modi pledged to Make India Great Again and promised that 'MAGA plus MIGA becomes a mega partnership.' Fast forward to recent days, as Trump first slapped a draconian tariff of 25% on India, then doubled that to 50% (to take effect later this month) as punishment for India's ongoing imports of Russian oil. 'I don't care what India does with Russia,' Trump taunted. 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.' (India's economy is in fact booming.) Nothing about this sounds mega. Trump's ire against India is 'mystifying' and 'shortsighted,' Lisa Curtis at the Center for a New American Security said. She's worked for almost three decades to deepen the relationship between the US and India, most recently on the National Security Council in Trump's first term. Like his Democratic predecessor and successor, Trump at that time also wanted to enlist the world's most populous democracy as an ally to help resist the looming autocratic axis of China and Russia. During the Cold War, India remained proudly 'non-aligned' but bought its weapons mainly from Moscow, whereas its arch-rival, Pakistan, mostly used American arms. In recent decades, though, these relationships inverted, with India nowadays buying more military kit from the US and other Western countries than from Russia, and Pakistan getting more weapons from China than the US. Other bonds between the US and India have also been thriving – just think of the Desi diasporas in Silicon Valley or academia, or the vice president's in-laws. America and Curtis, had especially high hopes for a budding quasi-alliance among the US, India, Australia and Japan. Called the Quad, it seeks to deepen cooperation in the Indo-Pacific to manage and protect maritime commerce, undersea cables, critical minerals and much else. It never prevented India from also maintaining ties with Russia and China – within the so-called BRICS format, notably. But Washington envisioned the Quad evolving into another of America's 'minilateral' alliances for mutual defence in Asia, with China in the role of bogey. Events are taking a different turn. In May, a terrorist attack in Kashmir sparked the latest clash between India and Pakistan. Worried about escalation between the two nuclear powers, the Trump administration urged both sides to stand down, which they eventually did. Then the narratives diverged. Trump repeatedly claimed full credit for being a peacemaker, even suggesting that he threatened India to make it climb down. Modi, and many Indians, were shocked. In previous crises, the US also calmed tempers behind the scenes, but India has always rejected official third-party mediation in its conflict with Pakistan. Now Modi felt humiliated. His government took the unusual step of publishing the minutes of a call between Trump and Modi, clarifying that 'at no point' was there any mediation by the US and that the ceasefire discussions 'took place directly between India and Pakistan.' Other Indian pundits were less diplomatic and almost poetic in their outrage over this 'typical Trump overreach.' Trump wasn't pleased. He was all the more delighted, though, when Pakistan praised his peacemaking prowess and hinted that it would nominate the president for the Nobel Peace Prize he openly covets. Trump then hosted Pakistan's top military official – whom India considers the mastermind of the recent terrorist attack – for lunch, and Pakistan promptly made the Nobel nomination official. Subsequently, Pakistan also bargained down the new American tariffs on its goods from 29% to 19% – relatively meek next to India's rate. None of this means that the US -Indian relationship is irredeemably broken. Trade negotiators are slated to meet again this month, and a deal remains conceivable. Still, Indians have taken note that Trump is cracking down hardest against India, a putative partner, for buying oil from Russia, and not on China, allegedly America's main adversary, which imports even more Russian oil. Nor are they thrilled about the surging deportations of Indians illegally in the US, the harassment of Indian (and all foreign) students on American campuses, and much else. The Quad, meanwhile, still exists. Its foreign ministers met just the other day, and India will host a summit of the four leaders this fall. But Trump's attendance is now in doubt. 'If the rhetoric remains acerbic, I have difficulty in seeing him going,' Curtis told me. His former rapport with the Indian leader is gone, she added: 'Prime Minister Modi is just not going to trust President Trump anymore.' That doesn't mean Modi will throw himself into the arms of Beijing – as my colleague Karishma Vaswani points out, India has other friends in Asia to help it keep an eye on China. But Modi is suddenly making plans to visit China for the first time in seven years, in what appears to be a diplomatic thaw. Meanwhile, the Russian president is arranging a trip to see Modi. America's strategy for more than a decade has been to pull India closer into the Western and democratic orbit as a counterweight to its main autocratic rivals and adversaries. Whether the result of design, neglect or whim, Washington's turn away from New Delhi cannot be seen as anything other than counterproductive. —Bloomberg Opinion/TNS
