Nitin Gadkari takes ‘dadagiri' jibe amid US tariff hike, ‘will never have to bow down if…'
Gadkari, while speaking at Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT) in Nagpur, said, "If our export and economic growth rate increases, I don't think we will need to go to anyone. Those who are doing 'dadagiri' are doing so because they are financially strong and have technology."
Gadkari's remarks on Saturday come days after Donald Trump signed an Executive Order imposing an additional 25% tariff on imports from India.
Trump cited matters of national security and foreign policy concerns, as well as other relevant trade laws, for the increase, claiming that India's imports of Russian oil, directly or indirectly, pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States.
He added that despite becoming financially strong, India would remain guided by its culture. "Today, if we become financially strong and also become ahead in technology, even after this, we will not bully anyone because this is not in our culture. Our culture teaches us that the welfare of the world is the most important," Gadkari said.
Underscoring the importance of innovation, the minister noted, "Today the solution to all the problems of the world is science, technology and knowledge. If we use these three things, then we will never have to bow down to the world. Research centres, IITs, and engineering colleges should conduct research with the country's needs in mind. There are different things in all districts, states and regions. We have to work keeping everyone in mind. If we do such work continuously, then the growth rate of our country's economy will increase up to three times."
Terming the United States' move to impose additional tariffs on India over its oil imports from Russia as "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable," the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) declared that New Delhi will take "all actions necessary to protect its national interests.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Putin's Personal Victory': Zelensky Jibes Trump But Report Reveals Kyiv's ‘Secret Surrender' Plan
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is reportedly showing more flexibility about giving up some territory in negotiations to end the war with Russia in secret. Although publicly Zelensky has refused to accept losing land or giving up claims on Russian-held areas, The Daily Telegraph reported that Ukraine could agree to freeze the current front lines — meaning not trying to retake some areas controlled by Russia, including parts of eastern Ukraine (Luhansk and Donetsk), Crimea, and parts of the southern regions Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. In return, Ukraine would demand strong security guarantees from Western countries, such as continued military support and a clear path to joining NATO. This shift comes ahead of a planned summit between Russian President Putin and U.S. President Trump, where a land swap deal might be discussed, which Trump said could benefit both countries. On Tuesday, Zelensky said that the Alaska summit was a personal victory for Putin. Watch for more details.#Zelensky #UkraineWar #RussiaUkraineConflict #LandConcessions #NATOSecurity #PutinTrumpSummit #UkraineTerritory #EasternUkraine #Crimea #Zaporizhzhia #Kherson #UkraineNegotiations #PeaceTalks #RussiaUkraineWar #Geopolitics Read More
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Behind US-China trade truce
United States President Donald Trump on Monday extended his trade truce with China for another three months until November 10, pausing the triple-digit import duties that the two countries would have levied on each other's goods. Trump's move — 'to continue the suspension' of the prohibitive 145% tariff on Chinese goods and keep it at 30% following an earlier executive order dated May 12 — comes in the wake of Beijing's strong response with retaliatory measures of its own. That included not just imposing a 125% tariff on US shipments (since lowered to 10%), but also curbing exports of rare-earth metals and magnets, impacting American auto, aerospace, defence, and semiconductor manufacturers. However, it isn't just the choking of the supply of critical minerals that China has used as a leveraging tool to bring Trump to the negotiating table. In its ongoing, albeit temporarily halted, trade war with the US, China has also employed a 'trump card' in the form of agricultural imports. The accompanying table shows that the exports of US farm produce to China have more than halved, from $13.1 billion during January-June 2024 to $6.4 billion in the first six months of 2025. It comes on top of declines in the last two years, and is a far cry from the peak of $40.7 billion scaled in 2022. The fall in agricultural imports has been led by soyabean, with China importing hardly $2.5 billion worth of the leguminous oilseed from the US in January-June 2025, as against over $17.9 billion in 2022. That explains why Trump, in a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday, urged China to 'quickly quadruple' its soyabean imports from the US. He wrote, 'Our great farmers produce the most robust soybeans…Rapid service will be provided. Thank you President Xi [Jinping]'. Soyabean apart, China has massively reduced its purchases of US corn (maize), coarse grains (mainly sorghum and barley), cotton, beef, pork, poultry meat, and even forest products and tree nuts such as almonds, pistachios and walnuts. China is a huge importer of agri-commodities. Till two years ago, it was the world's biggest buyer of soyabean, rapeseed, wheat, barley, sorghum, oats and cotton, and No. 2 for corn (after Mexico) and palm oil (after India). A lot of these imports — 105 million tonnes (mt) of soyabean, 14.2 mt of barley, 13.8 mt of corn, 11.2 mt of wheat and 8.7 mt of sorghum in 2024 — catered to the protein and energy requirements of its massive swine herd and poultry flock. China houses roughly half of the world's pig population, and a fifth of its chickens. In 2024, China imported 74.7 mt of soyabean from Brazil and only 22.1 mt from the US. By sourcing more from Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Paraguay and other countries, it is hurting the interest of farmers in the US 'corn belt' states stretching from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri to North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. In addition, there are the beef farmers in Texas and Oklahoma, and the tree nut growers in California, Oregon, New Mexico, and Georgia, who stand to lose from a trade war with China. Simply put, China is not only leveraging its control over the global rare-earth elements market — from mining and refining to exports — but also its power as an agri-commodities importer to push Trump to continue 'productive discussions' with Beijing 'to resolve trade disputes and strengthen economic ties'. While US exports of farm produce to China have plunged by 51.3% in January-June 2025 over January-June 2024, that to India have soared 49.1% for the same period. As reported in this newspaper, agricultural trade between India and the US has actually been booming. Based on shipment value trends so far, both exports from the US to India and that from India to the US are set to top $3.5 billion and $7.5 billion respectively. India has, in fact, overtaken China to emerge as the biggest market for US tree nuts, with exports at more than $1.1 billion in 2024 and growing by 42.8% year-on-year to $759.6 million in January-June 2025. The US, likewise, has a 35% share in India's seafood exports. In frozen shrimps and prawns, more than $1.9 billion out of the $4.5 billion of Indian exports during 2024-25 (April-March) went to the US. It's another thing that despite this robust two-way trade engagement — more so in a sector that has become a sticking point in the ongoing bilateral trade talks — the Trump administration has doubled the tariff on Indian imports to 50%, effective from August 27. That includes a 25% 'penalty' for the purchase of Russian oil, which China has also been doing without inviting any such coercive duty.
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
C Raja Mohan writes: When Trump meets Putin, hurdles crossed and yet to come
That Vladimir Putin is being hosted on American soil this week — after a decade of deep tensions —marks a significant moment in the shifting relations between the United States, Russia, Europe, and China. The Alaska peace talks on Ukraine, alongside broader discussions on US-Russia ties between President Donald Trump and Putin, could have far-reaching consequences for Eurasian security and the global order. India, now facing a 25 per cent additional tariff on exports to the US because of its Russian oil imports, has a direct stake in the summit's outcome. PM Narendra Modi called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reaffirm India's support for the peace process. Putin's last visit to the US was in 2015 for a UN summit, when he met President Obama on the margins. Subsequent meetings with US presidents took place in third countries — Helsinki in 2018 and Geneva in 2021. His last formal White House summit was in 2005. Since the late 2000s, US-Russia relations have steadily worsened, fuelled by NATO's eastward expansion, Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014, and its invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2022. Given two decades of political hostility toward Russia in the US, suspicions within the American 'deep state' that Trump is a Russian asset, and Democratic attempts to impeach him in his first term, the decision to host Putin is a bold political move. That, in turn, is rooted in Trump's worldview. Three elements stand out. First, Trump has consistently signalled a desire to break from Washington's entrenched antagonism to Russia and bear the political cost. Constrained in his first term, he now appears determined to explore a different relationship. Second is Trump's claim to be the 'peace president'. In 2024, he claimed the invasion would not have occurred if he were president and that he could end it 'on day one.' In his January 2025 inaugural address, he declared: 'We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' This aligns with the MAGA movement's rejection of 'endless wars' and focus on rebuilding the homeland. Third is Trump's instinct to link peace with profit. His ideas — turning Gaza into a resort, securing mineral rights in Ukraine, exploring business with Russia or selling Pakistani oil to India — reflect a 'peace-for-profit' logic. If the Alaska summit produces a deal, expect significant commercial components. Trump's Ukraine envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin aide Kirill Dmitriev have been developing 'peace-for-business' proposals. These centre on de-escalation in exchange for commercial openings between the US and Russia. Core areas involve structured oil and LNG flows, protections for energy infrastructure, and penalties if hostilities resume. Arctic cooperation is also on the table. Another track explores controlled trade in critical minerals and rare earths. Significant hurdles remain in the pursuit of peace for profit: Political resistance in Congress and Europe, and Kyiv's opposition to arrangements that reward aggression. More challenging are the structural problems in the complex negotiations over ending the war. The summit's format excludes Ukraine and sidelines Europe, raising doubts about legitimacy and durability. Efforts are being made to engage the Europeans and include Zelenskyy in some form, but the essential dilemma remains — whether to pursue a rapid ceasefire that freezes current lines or a slower process that secures broader legitimacy. Meanwhile, Putin's emphasis is on direct talks with Trump. Five intertwined issues are at the heart of the peace talks: First is the question of a ceasefire — an immediate, verifiable halt to hostilities, with clearly agreed lines of control. Next comes territory and sovereignty: Russia seeks recognition, or at least de facto acceptance, of its control over Crimea and the occupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, while Ukraine firmly rejects any land-for-peace arrangement. The third issue is security architecture, with Moscow demanding binding limits on Ukraine's NATO membership, Western bases, and arms supplies, and Kyiv insisting on its sovereign right to choose its alignments. Fourth is sanctions relief: Russia wants rapid easing, but the West insists that meaningful concessions must come first. Finally, there is enforcement — credible monitoring mechanisms, withdrawal schedules, buffer zones, and dispute-resolution arrangements to prevent any agreement from collapsing. Each of these issues is difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of all parties. Any one can derail the peace talks. To complicate matters, the stakeholders of peace have divergent positions. Trump wants a quick and big 'win', but some in the administration and many in Washington insist on caution. Moscow is seeking a durable settlement in which the Russian role in European security is secured. It wants to block NATO expansion and seeks a say in Ukraine's internal order. Kyiv demands full sovereignty and the freedom to choose its security partners. Europe is split on tactics: Some urge 'ceasefire first', others insist on Ukraine's place at the table and reject unilateral concessions. European leaders fear Trump and Putin could cut a 'Yalta-style' bargain over their heads, but they have limited leverage in persuading Trump. Beijing is also wary that a US-Russia rapprochement might free Washington to concentrate pressure on China in Asia. For India, reconciliation between Washington and Moscow is welcome. The Russia-West conflict has historically strengthened China and Pakistan, constraining India's regional policies. Delhi hoped Trump's pursuit of peace with Russia would align with its interests. But India has now become collateral damage in Trump's bid to pressure Moscow into a deal. Failure in Alaska would be bad news for India; success, however, would not guarantee tariff relief. Trump has embraced tariffs as a diplomatic and political weapon and may continue to use them against India. It would be ironic if Delhi's long-standing bet on Moscow left it in a position where US-Russia ties improve while its own troubles with Washington persist. This would not be unprecedented. During the detente of the 1970s, the USSR's focus was on managing the global order in partnership with the US. After the Cold War, Russia ignored its old friends in favour of building partnerships with the US and Europe. It took more than a decade to restore India's close ties to Moscow. The lesson for Delhi is clear: It cannot take any great power for granted, but must strive to develop independent relations with all of them. Ukraine is a stark reminder that India should not get drawn into great power conflict, despite the transient opportunities that may present themselves. The writer is distinguished fellow at the Council on Strategic and Defence Research and contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
