&w=3840&q=100)
Impose Trump's illogical tariff on China, US importers too: Amitabh Kant
"India should never bend. We should look at a long-term perspective. The Prime Minister has invested a lot in this relationship with the United States over the last decade. We should adopt a long-term perspective and ultimately win the game against the United States," Kant told ANI.
He pointed out that other major economies, such as Turkey, the EU, and China, also import significant quantities of energy and minerals from Russia or China.
"A 25 per cent tariff is arbitrary. It is not comprehensible to me because then you should also be imposing a 25 per cent tariff on China and Turkey. But you should also be imposing it on Europe, which is a very major importer of gas from Russia, and you should also be imposing it on many of the importers in the United States, as the United States is importing a lot of critical minerals from Russia; all critical minerals are still being imported from China. So it doesn't stand to any logic," he said.
Kant also urged India to maintain its strategic autonomy and energy security in the face of proposed US tariffs, saying that India should prioritise its national interests and not compromise on its energy security, especially considering that India's oil imports from Russia are significantly lower than those of China or Turkey.
The US has imposed a 50% tariff on Indian goods, citing India's continued purchase of Russian oil.
"I'm a believer that India should not compromise on its energy security or its strategic autonomy. We are here for a long-term game, and we must win the long-term war. My belief is that we built up a relationship with the United States over two and a half decades, which was bipartisan. And this attempt to put a 50 per cent duty does not stand to logic because we import oil," he said.
Earlier, Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25 per cent tariff on imports from India, citing matters of national security and foreign policy concerns, as well as other relevant trade laws. He claimed that India's imports of Russian oil, directly or indirectly, pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) had termed the US move "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable," and said New Delhi will take "all actions necessary to protect its national interests.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
24 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Lahar Singh petitions ECI on audio clip in which a Congress MLA allegedly speaks on cash distribution to voters
BJP Rajya Sabha member Lahar Singh Siroya has urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to investigate an audio clip allegedly featuring Congress MLA for Arsikere K.M. Shivalinge Gowda discussing cash distribution for voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Citing his earlier complaint on former Union Minister C.M. Ibrahim's admission of buying 3,000 votes to ensure Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's victory in the 2018 Assembly elections from Badami, Mr. Lahar Singh said: 'These repeated revelations expose the Congress' deep-rooted vote chori culture, even as its leader Rahul Gandhi accuses others of electoral malpractice.' 'Now, there is another audio making news in my State (I have not independently verified the authenticity of the audio). In this clip, Mr. Shivalinge Gowda is heard speaking, apparently to a Congress Rajya Sabha MP, on how much money should be distributed per voter in the Hassan Lok Sabha seat to ensure their candidate's victory. This was in connection with the 2024 Lok Sabha polls,' he said. Taking a dig at Mr. Rahul Gandhi, he said: 'The irony is that Mr. Rahul Gandhi is shouting vote chori unaware that his own partymen are masters in the game. The fact that Mr. Rahul Gandhi makes wild allegations without worrying about what his party and partymen are all about is proof that he is desperately trying to remain relevant in the Indian political landscape.' Mr. Lahar Singh appealed to the ECI to probe the audio clip along with his earlier complaint related to purchase of 3,000 votes.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Alaskan encounter: Only Russian President Putin gained from the meeting
At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts Business Standard Editorial Comment Listen to This Article Hopes for an early end to the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine were comprehensively dashed following United States (US) President Donald Trump's much-anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Even given the low expectations from this meeting, the result could not have been worse for embattled Ukraine, for the signals it sends to countries with irredentist ambitions, notably China (Taiwan) and the US (Greenland). At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts. After affording Mr Putin a lavish welcome, including a red
