India faces tough choices under US tariff pressure
India faces an ultimatum from the United States with major political and economic ramifications both at home and abroad: end purchases of Russian oil or face painful tariffs.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the world's most populous nation and its fifth-biggest economy, must make some difficult decisions.
US President Donald Trump has given longstanding ally India, one of the world's largest crude oil importers, three weeks to find alternative suppliers.
Levies of 25 percent already in place will double to 50 percent if India doesn't strike a deal.
For Trump, the August 27 deadline is a bid to strip Moscow of a key source of revenue for its military offensive in Ukraine.
"It is a geopolitical ambush with a 21-day fuse", said Syed Akbaruddin, a former Indian diplomat to the United Nations, writing in the Times of India newspaper.
How has India responded?
New Delhi called Washington's move "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable".
Modi has appeared defiant.
He has not spoken directly about Trump but said on Thursday "India will never compromise" on the interests of its farmers.
Agriculture employs vast numbers of people in India and has been a key sticking point in trade negotiations.
It all seems a far cry from India's early hopes for special tariff treatment after Trump said in February he had found a "special bond" with Modi.
"The resilience of US-India relations... is now being tested more than at any other time over the last 20 years," said Michael Kugelman, from the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.
What is the impact on India?
Russia accounted for nearly 36 percent of India's total crude oil imports in 2024, snapping up approximately 1.8 million barrels of cut-price Russian crude per day.
Buying Russian oil saved India billions of dollars on import costs, keeping domestic fuel prices relatively stable.
Switching suppliers will likely threaten price rises, but not doing so will hit India's exports.
The Federation of Indian Export Organisations warned that the cost of additional US tariffs risked making many businesses "not viable".
Urjit Patel, a former central bank governor, said Trump's threats were India's "worst fears".
Without a deal, "a needless trade war" would likely ensue and "welfare loss is certain", he said in a post on social media.
What has Modi done?
Modi has sought to bolster ties with other allies.
That includes calling Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Thursday, who said they had agreed on the need "to defend multilateralism".
Ashok Malik, of business consultancy The Asia Group, told AFP: "There is a signal there, no question."
India's national security adviser Ajit Doval met with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, saying the dates of a visit to India by the Russian president were "almost finalised".
Modi, according to Indian media, might also visit China in late August. It would be Modi's first visit since 2018, although it has not been confirmed officially.
India and neighbouring China have long competed for strategic influence across South Asia.
Successive US administrations have seen India as a key partner with like-minded interests when it comes to China.
"All those investments, all that painstaking work done by many US presidents and Indian prime ministers, is being put at risk," Malik said.
"I have not seen the relationship so troubled since the early 1990s, to be honest. I'm not saying it's all over, but it is at risk."
Can Modi change policy?
Modi faces a potential domestic backlash if he is seen to bow to Washington.
"India must stand firm, put its national interest first," the Indian Express newspaper wrote in an editorial.
Opposition politicians are watching keenly.
Mallikarjun Kharge, president of the key opposition Congress party, warned the government was "disastrously dithering".
He also pointed to India's longstanding policy of "non-alignment".
"Any nation that arbitrarily penalises India for our time-tested policy of strategic autonomy... doesn't understand the steel frame India is made of," Kharge said in a statement.
However, retired diplomat Akbaruddin said there is still hope.
New Delhi can be "smartly flexible", Akbaruddin said, suggesting that could mean "buying more US oil if it's priced competitively, or engaging Russia on the ceasefire issue".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies
President Donald Trump's executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry. But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic or gender preferences. Advertisement DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020. In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. DEI had insidiously replaced the old notion of affirmative action — a 1960s-era government remedy for historical prejudices against black Americans, from the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregation. But during the Obama era, 'diversity' superseded affirmative action by offering preferences to many groups well beyond black Americans. Advertisement Quite abruptly, Americans began talking in Marxist binaries. On one side were the supposed 65 to 70% white majority 'oppressors' and 'victimizers' — often stereotyped as exuding 'white privilege,' 'white supremacy' or even 'white rage.' They were juxtaposed to the 30 to 35% of 'diverse' Americans, the so-called 'oppressed' and 'victimized.' Advertisement Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI. First, how does one define 'diverse' in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated and integrated society? DNA badges? The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South? Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half 'non-white,' employers, corporations and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists. Advertisement Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters — like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the would-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani — to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was African American. Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promises to tax 'affluent' and 'whiter' neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America. Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents? In other words, one's superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one's income or wealth, nor defines 'privilege' or lack thereof. Third, DEI is often tied to questions of 'reparations.' The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past. Advertisement Yet in today's multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the United States and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea or Chad claim, knowing little about, and experiencing no firsthand bias from, Americans, the United States, or its history? Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment? Fourth, does the word 'minority' still carry any currency? Advertisement In today's California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% white, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% black, and 3% Other — with no significant majority and fewer whites than the Latino 'minority.' Are Latinos the new de facto 'majority' and 'whites' just one of the four other 'minorities?' Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI 'proportional representation' apply, and when does it not? Are whites 'overrepresented' among the nation's university faculties, reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population? Advertisement Or, are whites 'underrepresented' as college students, making up just 55% of them, and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point-guard positions to ensure proper athletic 'diversity, equity and inclusion'? Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. 'Affinity' segregationist graduations — black, Hispanic, Asian and gay — are considered 'affirming'. Advertisement But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered 'racist'? Is a Latino-themed, de facto segregated house on a California campus considered 'enlightened,' while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary? In truth, DEI long ago became corrupt, falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea — unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Miami Herald
9 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Analyst expects gold to fall off the 'Wall of Worry'
Investors have been climbing the proverbial wall of worry to new record highs on the stock market this year, fearful with each step that the market is about to have a reversal. Meanwhile, gold's move to record highs has been far more impressive, and buyers seem to have no worry that the end of their rally is in sight. Stocks, as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500, were up roughly 9.4% through August 8 – though they were up nearly 28% since the market bottom on April 9, the day when President Donald Trump paused tariffs just days after announcing them. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Meanwhile, gold has soared by 29.5% this year, through August 8, standing at roughly $3,460 an ounce. Its gain since the post-tariff announcement low is roughly 18%, but gold also didn't suffer as much as stocks in the meltdown that accompanied the tariff news. The three-year annualized average return on gold, as measured by SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) , is 23.4%, well above its historic averages; from 1971 to 2024, the annualized return on the shiny stuff was just under 8%. Gold's rise hasn't been as a result of its traditional role as a hedge against inflation, because it normally takes a protracted time period with prices rising by more than 5% for gold to kick in that way. Instead, gold has been seen as an ideal hedge against geopolitical risk, the fighting in Ukraine and Gaza, the prospect of trade wars coming from the tariffs, and more. With no end in sight to those problems, plenty of investors have become gold bugs, looking to precious metals for protection and profits in times of uncertainty. More investing: Analyst says popular meme stock is worth less than zeroVeteran fund manager turns heads with Palantir stock price targetTop analyst sends Apple CEO bold message about its future And while buying gold now – or stocks, for that matter – can feel a bit like showing up late to the party, most industry watchers are suggesting that full-steam ahead is more likely than some reversion to the mean. While there is no shortage of caution and nervousness, there is no widespread call for recession even into 2025. Plenty of market observers saying that rate cuts (whenever they start) and the economic benefits of deregulation – the next big component of President Trump's economic plan – will offset the headwinds to keep things moving forward, albeit moderately. And plenty of gold analysts make a case for the gold rally to continue. "This gold bull market might be a little bit old in the tooth … it started in 2016," said Thomas Winmill, manager of the Midas Discovery Fund (MIDSX) , in an interview on the August 4 edition of "Money Life with Chuck Jaffe." "It's up over 300% in those nine years. That has not happened very often. The average bull market for gold is about 53 months, according to my research, and this is over 110, almost twice the normal length." Related: Veteran strategist unveils updated gold price forecast Still, Winmill insisted gold is not overpriced: "If you adjust the former high, which was reached back in 1988, for inflation, we're actually below that high, which inflation-adjusted would be about $3,500 an ounce." "The basket of gold stocks represented by the Gold Bugs Index hit a high of 600 in August of 2011 when the gold price hit 1800," Winmill added, "and that index is well below that now, in the 400 range, about 430. So, on that score, we've got 50% to go in gold stocks." On the other side of that trade is veteran commodities and futures analyst Carley Garner, senior strategist at DeCarley Trading, who said in an interview from the August 5 edition of "Money Life" that it's a "sell-the-rallies market in both gold and silver, and the reason I think that is I believe the U.S. dollar has bottomed, and I think it will continue to work its way higher." Garner said that move in the dollar changes the landscape for a lot of commodities, but particularly the metals, and especially in times when gold "is probably the most volatile it's ever been." It's not the volatility that concerns Garner so much as the price, especially because, she said, "A lot of people are putting money in gold just because it's going up." "But I've lived through 2011," she added, "and I remember all of the same stories that are circulating in gold, all the reasons to buy it. 'The central banks are buying this and that. You can't trust the dollar,' so on and so forth. "All of those things were narratives in 2011, and gold topped, and then took a 50% haircut, and it took a decade to get back." Garner added that a 50% haircut is not just a possible scenario, but also "might actually be what could be around the corner." Garner noted that she isn't trying to predict anything, but rather is reading the probabilities. While her take on gold is sour, her take on the stock market isn't much better, with a probability of being much lower than current levels before it can trade significantly above them. She noted a trend line in the monthly chart of the S&P 500 futures, looking at high points, that "comes in right around 6,000 [on the S&P index]. So can we go above 6500? Sure. But the odds that we see higher than that here in the next handful of months, are pretty slim. A more likely scenario is we get continuation of the consolidation or the pullback. But the problem is, I don't see any good support on a monthly chart until we get into the low 5000s." In her personal portfolio, Garner noted that she is heavily overweight Treasury securities. She has used this strategy before to ride out rough patches until the market made her more optimistic. "Treasuries, regardless of where you look at the curve, are paying 4% to 5%," Garner said. "And if you hold expiration, you get that money.…So I'm just playing the odds here. And the odds are Treasuries are [a] much better buy than stocks." Related: Legendary Wall Street forecaster Bob Doll is having his best year The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tammy Bruce: Putin peace talks 'wouldn't be possible without Trump'
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce joins 'MediaBuzz' to weigh in on President Donald Trump's push for peace in Ukraine and Gaza.
