India's response to Trump's bombast must be strong
And more peculiar was his announcement on Wednesday to double the tariff to 50 per cent, citing India's oil imports from Russia. Interestingly, the US tariff on Chinese imports was a lot less. While the initial 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports has come into effect on Thursday, the additional tariff will be levied three weeks later.
These tariff announcements were rash because they did not take into account the multifarious nature of deep and growing ties between the world's two largest democracies. New Delhi's reaction has been measured. It was only when the Trump administration's statements and actions became intolerable that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) issued a strong statement, saying the targeting of India was 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable.' It went on to say that India would take all actions necessary to protect its national interests.
Recently, the MEA also exposed the hypocrisy of the US and the European Union over ties with Russia. 'The European Union in 2024 had a bilateral trade of Euro 67.5 billion in goods with Russia. In addition, it had trade in services estimated at Euro 17.2 billion in 2023. This is significantly more than India's total trade with Russia that year or subsequently,' it said. Also, the US 'continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals.'
Thus, the Narendra Modi government has not only convincingly refuted Trump's allegations but also exposed the doublespeak of the developed world. Still better, it has done so without indulging in pomposity, which was the characteristic feature of foreign policy in the past. The government must continue that tone and tenor.
To be sure, there are elements, both within the ruling dispensation and without, that would urge the government to up the ante. Such anti-American and anti-West activists and organisations are both on the Right and the Left, not to forget those in between. Recently, RSS affiliate Swadeshi Jagran Manch, which is doctrinally opposed to America and capitalism, castigated Trump for his 'coercive tactics' of threatening penalties against India for trade ties with Russia. 'If Washington believes that such coercive tactics can sway India's decisions, it must recognise that today's India is not the India of a decade ago,' Manch co-convener Ashwani Mahajan said in a statement, obliquely crediting Modi with bold leadership.
And, of course, the Congress party, which for decades followed anti-America policies (some of which still extant), gleefully said that the 'country is now bearing the cost of Narendra Modi's 'friendship'. It was referring to the 'Howdy, Modi!' event in Texas in September 2019.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Modi said that India would never compromise on the interest of farmers, fishermen and dairy sector. He went on to say that he was prepared to bear a significant personal cost if necessary. This statement came a day after Trump doubled tariffs on Indian imports. However, Modi must ensure that goading by professional anti-US activists and taunts by opponents do not colour his government's foreign policy. But our response to Trump's bombast must be measured and at the same time, strong.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
26 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
India's GDP could slow down to 6% in FY26 if US levies 50% tariff: Moody's
On August 6, the US announced an additional 25 per cent tariff on all Indian imports, in addition to an existing 25 per cent duty, taking the total duty to 50 per cent effective August 27.
Scroll.in
26 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Full text: ‘Act now', say Martin Luther King III and Rajmohan Gandhi in humanitarian appeal for Gaza
Human rights activist Martin Luther King III and biographer Rajmohan Gandhi on Thursday called for humanitarian aid to be made available to the people of Gaza without obstruction or delay. Martin Luther King III, the son of late American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, and Rajmohan Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, said that the continued violence in the besieged Palestinian territory does not bring justice and only 'multiplies suffering'. They requested world leaders and regional actors to 'act now', saying that the 'international community must not look away'. Israel's military offensive in Gaza began in October 2023 after Palestinian militant group Hamas killed 1,200 persons during its incursion into southern Israel and took hostages. Israel has been carrying out unprecedented air and ground strikes on Gaza since then, leaving more than 61,000 persons dead. Tel Aviv has also enforced a blockade on humanitarian aid, which the United Nations say has brought the population to the verge of famine. Israel and Hamas have been holding ceasefire talks since July 6. Earlier efforts to reinstate a brief ceasefire that took effect in January had stalled due to major disagreements between the two sides. Read the full text of their appeal below: We speak today, not only as descendants of Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Gandhi, but as members of a human family wounded by the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Our hearts are burdened by the cries of innocent civilians – especially children – caught in a tragic storm of violence, displacement, and deprivation. At the same time, we recognize the deep pain of Israeli families whose loved ones remain in captivity. Their agony, too, is ours. Let us, in our pain, not forget the words of Mahatma Gandhi: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.' The continued violence does not bring justice – it multiplies suffering. We echo this truth and call, with urgency and love, for an immediate end to the bloodshed. All hostages must be safely released. Humanitarian aid – food, water, and medicine – must reach the people of Gaza without obstruction or delay. We say to the world: The children of Gaza are our children. The Israeli hostages held in fear and silence are our family. No child should know starvation; no parent should wait in anguish for a child who may never return. This nightmare must end. As Dr Martin Luther King Jr reminded us, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' Peace in the Middle East cannot be built on the rubble of broken bodies and shattered trust. It must rise from the dignity of every human being, Israeli and Palestinian alike, living in equal dignity as neighbours. We appeal to world leaders and regional actors: act now—not with vengeance, but with vision. The time has come for courageous diplomacy, rooted in justice and compassion. The international community must not look away. The road to reconciliation will be long, but it begins with the first steps of mercy and moral clarity. Let us rise above division, hatred, and despair – and affirm, with firm hearts and open hands, that a just peace is not only necessary, but possible. — Martin Luther King III and Rajmohan Gandhi
The Print
26 minutes ago
- The Print
Buying Russian oil, misreading Trump—3 points will define India's next energy strategy
While public commentary has focused heavily on Trump, tariffs, and New Delhi's indignation, the more pressing task is to interrogate the rationale behind these choices. That balance is now under pressure from Donald Trump's 50 per cent tariff offensive, aimed selectively at India and leaving little ambiguity about his objectives—and in Trump's world, what he wants, he usually gets. Yet the national debate has taken too many assumptions for granted. It is worth applying a deconstruction approach to India's famous oil bargains with Russia—a decision once hailed as tactical brilliance, but one now risking entanglement in overlapping economic and diplomatic challenges. India's crude oil trade has evolved from a purely economic exchange into both a geopolitical test of strategic autonomy and a measure of the constraints in its energy policy. Over the past three years, India has gone from being a marginal buyer of Russian crude to one of its largest importers, carefully balancing ties with the US, Europe, and shifting global energy markets. To navigate the road ahead, India must revisit three fundamentals: why it embraced Russian oil, how it misread Trump's European recalibration, and where future India–Russia energy engagement should head. Clarity on these three points may well define the next chapter of India's energy strategy. Also read: Trump tariff forces India to shed illusion. Stop conflating status with power 50 shades of discounts Despite close political ties and deep defence cooperation, India and Russia were never bound by energy dependence. Even with India's heavy reliance on imports—currently 88 per cent of its daily crude requirement of 5.5 million barrels—its primary suppliers have traditionally been Gulf countries. The earlier chapter of India capitulating to Trump 1.0's sanctions on Iran and Venezuela is well known; today, however, the challenge is starker. Russia entered India's energy equation only after the geopolitical earthquake of President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That act shattered the European order painstakingly built since the Second World War and crystallised after the Soviet Union's collapse. Central to this upheaval was Putin's weaponisation of energy: Europe's decades-long dependence on cheap Russian oil and gas became a vulnerability. In response, Europe diversified away from Russia, while the G7 imposed a $60 per-barrel price cap on Russian crude in December 2022. The logic was clear: as one of the world's top three oil producers, Russia could not be cut off overnight. The aim was instead to squeeze Moscow's revenues, which were funding its war machine, while keeping prices stable and securing alternative supplies for Europe. India saw opportunity in this upheaval. With vast import needs, it began rerouting Russian oil at supposedly lower prices, rejecting G7 sanctions and arranging direct and indirect deals through intermediaries. Early reports spoke of a 'free on board' discount of 30 per cent, though never confirmed. Brent crude fell from $86.51 in January 2022 to $80.92 in December, peaking briefly at about $90 in June 2023 before sliding again. While some credit India's purchases with stabilising prices, Russian oil for India almost always remained above the $60 price cap. The critical question is whether India ever bought below that threshold. Reports suggest an average discount of only $5 per barrel—hardly transformative—and potentially offset by hidden costs and middlemen's surcharges. Even so, large volumes (peaking at over 2 million barrels per day before dropping to 1.5 million) meant cumulative savings. But if cheap oil was the goal, why not join or informally align with the price cap, securing crude closer to $60 without the complications of shadow fleets and sanctions risks? In July 2025, the EU lowered the cap to about $47 while Brent traded around $65. This offered another opportunity for cheaper imports, yet India stayed outside the framework, maintaining minimal discounts and ultimately seeing one of its companies sanctioned—for 'strategic autonomy.' Government claims of passing benefits to consumers are unconvincing: petrol prices hit Rs 105 per litre in 2025 versus Rs 95 in 2022. Recent relief correlates more with global declines—12 per cent over the past six months—than with Russian discounts. Savings estimates of $25 billion are offset by projections of $9–10 billion in potential losses if imports shift away from Russia, and much of the gain may reflect global oversupply rather than uniquely favourable Russian terms. From a taxpayer's perspective, why not secure far greater savings by pressing Moscow for prices nearer the cap while sustaining high volumes? This would have preserved strategic autonomy while serving economic logic. Instead, India paid more, absorbed sanctions, and missed chances for deeper cost benefits. Now Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on India are unrelated to the EU's cap. His pivot on Ukraine has hardened US demands that India halt Russian oil imports—demands not pressed on others—hurting New Delhi disproportionately. The real question is why Trump would take such a stance toward a strategic partner his administration once called an ally. Also read: Trump is treating diplomacy like a failed casino deal Misreading Trump's re-pivot to Europe When Donald Trump returned to the White House, India was smug. His criticism of Europe, mocking remarks about Denmark and Canada, and public praise for Putin—especially his Oval Office dressing-down of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—were interpreted in New Delhi as vindication: India stood to benefit from a US policy shift toward Russia. At first, the bilateral climate looked promising. The Trump administration's rhetoric suggested the Indo-Pacific would be his main strategic theatre. Anticipated friction over India's protectionism and trade deficit was being managed, with both sides pursuing a deal. Public displays of camaraderie continued—until 'Operation Sindoor.' That alone, however, was not the turning point. Trump's push to end the war in Ukraine faltered despite carrots for Russia and sticks for Ukraine. In fact, Russian attacks on Ukraine have doubled since Trump took charge in January. Frustrated, he shifted tone, endorsing the Lindsey–Blumenthal bill to sanction countries buying Russian oil, a measure with strong Senate backing. Simultaneously, the April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs targeted nations with trade deficits with the US, India among them. Trump re-engaged with Europe, supplying Ukraine with weapons and extracting costly commitments: 5 per cent of GDP on defence, a trade deal with 15 per cent tariffs, and pledges of about $600 billion in US investment. Japan followed with similar concessions. Meanwhile, Trump prematurely claimed to have mediated Operation Sindoor, clashing with India's account. The fallout strained personal communication between Modi and Trump—tensions that might have been eased with a symbolic 'thank you' or diplomatic courtesy for facilitating the 'ceasefire.' Also read: India's export basket has no irreplaceables. It's a vulnerability in Trump's power politics What next for India and Russia Now, as India's NSA Ajit Doval visits Moscow in a show of solidarity, the moment calls for more than optics. Three issues must shape discussions with Russia: First — Payments. Confusion surrounds the currency used in the oil trade. The rupee–ruble mechanism has stalled, with billions of rupees stuck in Russian accounts. Russia's war economy leaves little incentive to reinvest in India despite earlier promises. Payments in dirhams have become harder after UAE banks shut Russian accounts under US pressure, and India hardly holds dirham reserves. Yuan payments are strategically risky for India, and gold settlements are not yet viable. Trade experts must directly address these bottlenecks. Second — Discounts. India avoided joining the sanctions regime, yet the discounts it received rarely justified the political and economic risks. With Russian imports already being cut and US crude purchases jumping 51 per cent in days, it is clear the 'discounted' oil was not cheap enough to offset sanctions or tariffs. Russia should now match its discounts to the new $47 price cap for ongoing purchases. Third — Parity with China. China remains Russia's largest energy buyer and reportedly enjoys deeper discounts. India must demand equal treatment for its remaining purchases. The stakes are high: India–US trade totals $212 billion, with $85 billion in Indian exports—40 per cent still exempt from tariffs. Finding workarounds while pursuing overdue structural reforms is essential. Strategic autonomy must be anchored in economic logic, ensuring national interest prevails over symbolic defiance—before multipolarity turns into 'messier-polarity.' Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
