‘No Call Between Modi-Trump From April 22 to June 17': Jaishankar in Parliament as Trump Repeats Ceasefire Claim
While Trump has claimed that he used trade as a leverage to bring the two countries from the brink of a nuclear war, Jaishankar said that at no point was there 'any linkage with trade' in the conversations between India and US. His statement was backed by Union home minister Amit Shah.
Jaishankar's remarks in Lok Sabha, during the special discussion on Operation Sindoor following the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22, came as Trump reiterated the claim that he had mediated the India-Pakistan ceasefire in Turnberry, Scotland, standing alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
'I'd like to inform the House that on May 9, Vice President JD Vance called the prime minister warning of a massive Pakistani attack in the next few hours. The prime minister, in his response, made it very clear that if such an attack occurred, it would meet with an appropriate response from our side. That attack took place and was foiled by our armed forces. I think the House should collectively appreciate the performance of our armed forces in preventing what was a massive attack on May 9 and 10. Our response, which the prime minister promised, was delivered with devastating effect,' the external affairs minister said.
He reiterated India's earlier position that the move to stop hostilities had come from Pakistan and said that this had been communicated to other countries as well.
'On May 10, we received phone calls sharing the impression of other countries that Pakistan was ready to cease the fighting. Our position was that we need to receive this request from the DGMO channel. That is exactly how that request came,' Jaishankar said and added, 'I want to make two things clear: at no stage, in any conversation with the US, was there any linkage with trade and what was going on.'
He added that there had also been no call between Trump and Modi between April and June. 'Secondly there was no call between the Prime Minister and President Donald from April 22-when President Trump called to convey his sympathy to June 17-when he called the Canadian prime minister why he could not meet,' he said, referring to the G7 summit in June.
Jaishankar's statement comes as Trump has by some counts made the claim of mediating the ceasefire between India and Pakistan 26 times since May 10. He has also said that he used trade as leverage, and that some Indian jets were lost in the fighting.
The statement saw interventions by Union home minister Amit Shah who accused the opposition for believing in another country and not the Indian external affairs minister.
Amid loud protests from the opposition benches, Shah rose from his seat and accused the opposition of trusting another country's leader instead of India's external affairs minister.
'I object to one thing, when India's external affairs minister, who has taken oath, is speaking, they choose to believe someone from another country instead. I understand the importance of foreign countries in their party, but they cannot impose it on the House,' Shah said.
'You won't trust India's external affairs minister? He is responsible. It is precisely because of this attitude that they are sitting in the Opposition today, and they will continue to sit there for the next 20 years,' he added.
While opposition members had raised questions about what Operation Sindoor had achieved and the support India received from other countries, Jaishankar pointed to the UN Security Council statement following the Pahalgam terror attack.
'They affirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. And most importantly, the Council underlined the need to hold the perpetrators, organisers, financers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice,' said Jaishankar.
The Wire had reported that the statement, unlike after the Pulwama attack, stopped short of urging member states to cooperate specifically with India.
While opposition members had raised questions about what the seven multi-party delegations that fanned out across the globe had achieved, Jaishankar took a swipe and said that the question should be posed to opposition members who were part of these delegations and see their tweets for the activities that they did.
Facing questions about a two-front war with Pakistan and China, Jaishankar accused the Congress and said that this collaboration between the two had started 60 years ago.
'In 1966, the first Chinese military supplies went to Pakistan, nuclear collaboration started in 1976, when Bhutto arranged for China-Pakistan to get together. In 1980s, when PM Rajiv Gandhi was visiting China and Pakistan, that is when the nuclear collaboration was at its height; 2005, China-Pakistan Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation; 2006, Pakistan-China FTA; 2013, handing over of Gwadar port (Balochistan, Pakistan) to China; May 2013, announcement of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC),' he said.
In response to Pakistan securing an IMF loan following Operation Sindoor, Jaishankar said that the country was a 'serial borrower'
'The very people who are concerned today about a $7 billion package, should remember a $15 billion package went through for Pakistan during their tenure,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
27 minutes ago
- Economic Times
India refuses to play 'dead economy'. Will Trump back off?
The United States' imposition of 25% tariffs on Indian goods has drawn a measured but clear response from India. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal's remarks, issued in the wake of President Donald Trump's tariff announcement and disparaging comment calling India a 'dead economy,' were more than defensive. They were strategic, confident and unmistakably defiant. India has drawn its red line, and the message is clear: it will not be pressured into an unfavourable trade question now is whether the US will back off or recalibrate its approach, recognizing that India will not negotiate on unequal terms or under coercion. Goyal's statement, a quiet strategic assertionUnlike the rough words Trump used against India while announcing the tariffs, Goyal's statement that India gives 'utmost priority' to protecting farmers, labourers, entrepreneurs, exporters, and other industrial stakeholders was a quiet declaration of India's trade posture to the world, in addition to domestic assurance. By emphasising that India will not sign deals under deadlines or pressure, he framed the country's response not as reactive, but as anchored in policy consistency and sovereign also responded directly to Trump's calling India a "dead eocnomy" by asserting that India is not only the world's fastest-growing major economy, but will soon become the third-largest. This was a clear signal that India rejects the idea of being treated as a subordinate in global trade relations. It will engage but on equal rhetorical stance has important strategic consequences. In the realm of global diplomacy, perception is power. Goyal's articulation projected India not as a defensive partner on the backfoot, but as an assertive, confident global economy that deamnds respect and parity in negotiations. A red line, but not an unreasonable one While agriculture and dairy access remains a contentious issue, particularly the US push to export GM crops and meat-fed dairy, India's opposition is grounded in economic, regulatory, health and political logic. With vast numbers of small-scale farmers and a fragile rural economy, opening the gates to heavily subsidised US agri-products could destabilise a politically sensitive has not rejected trade reforms outright. It has signaled willingness to negotiate, but not on terms that threaten domestic livelihoods or regulatory autonomy. This is not blanket protectionism, but an insistence on fair trade rooted in local Read | India's $68 billion question: How to trade with Russia without making America unhappy Has Trump boxed the US into a corner?By publicly deriding India and slapping tariffs on its exports, Trump may have overplayed his hand. Rather than pushing India toward compromise, his comments have likely made it politically impossible for New Delhi to be seen as yielding. India now finds itself in a position where public perception, domestic politics and economic strategy all align in favour of resistance. Yielding to US demands would not only be unpopular at home, it would be interpreted as strategic weakness abroad US, too, has much to gain from deeper trade ties with India particularly as it seeks to diversify supply chains away from China and tap into India's growing consumer market. With India making it clear that unilateral pressure tactics won't work, Washington may be forced to rethink its strategy. The US could either entrench further, risking a prolonged standoff, or shift to a more diplomatic, respect-based dialogue to find common ground. Also Read | Pivot to Pakistan: Is Trump ditching Delhi for its enemy? The world may come to see India's firmness not as obstructionism or intransigence, but as a sign of a maturing power that cannot be steamrolled. If the US wants a meaningful, long-term economic relationship with India, it may have to abandon the current posture of economic intimidation. India has made its stance abundantly clear. It seeks trade partnerships based on fairness, mutual benefit and strategic respect. Goyal's statements underscore that India is no longer a pliant participant in global trade talks. It is assertive, self-assured and unafraid to walk away from deals that compromise core interests. The US now faces a decision -- either continue to press India with tariff threats and harsh rhetoric, or shift toward a cooperative approach that respects India's sovereign choices. If it chooses the latter, there remains strong potential for a new trade agreement that strengthens both economies. But if it clings to hardline demands, it risks isolating one of the world's fastest-growing markets and a critical geopolitical partner. The ball is now in America's court. India's response to Trump's tariffs has demonstrated that it is unwilling to buckle under pressure. Goyal's firm words reflect a broader shift in India's global stance: measured yet assertive. What remains to be seen is whether the US, recognising this new reality, is willing to adjust its tactics and engage India with the respect it demands. In the high-stakes world of global trade, coercion rarely works in the long term.
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Coming up Trumps against tariff threat
India's garments exports — that have stagnated in the $16-18 billion range over the last 10 years — now face an additional threat. Effective August 1, the Trump administration has more than doubled the tariff on Indian exports to 25%, with a threat of an additional penalty. Major apparel supplier Vietnam, on the other hand, recently secured a last-minute deal to cap US tariffs at 20% on many of its exports — giving it further advantage against India — while Bangladesh, another major competitor, is looking to secure a similar deal as Vietnam in the next few days. The apparel sector can lift millions out of poverty, as seen in Bangladesh, where garment work has empowered women at scale. (REUTERS) The US imported almost $85 billion worth of garments in 2024, of which India accounted for about $10.5 billion. While the latest tariff announcement can be seen as a setback, India still has three aces up its sleeve to neutralise its impact and push firmly towards its $100 billion textile exports target. These aces are concluding the free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU, ensuring the supply of raw material at competitive prices, and an incentive and reforms package tailored for employment generation through apparel exports. The first ace India must play is to expedite the FTA with the EU. Currently, the EU is the largest garments importer with an import value close to $200 billion. India only captures $5 billion of this against Bangladesh's $25 billion. The primary reason is the 10% duty advantage enjoyed by Bangladesh due to its LDC status, which allows it to export to the EU duty-free. If India were to sign an FTA with the EU on the lines of the recently concluded UK FTA, this disparity will vanish — making Indian exporters highly competitive in the largest market in the world. The second ace India needs to deal is addressing the high cost of raw material for its textile and apparel industry. Cotton, the lifeblood of our textile industry, carries an import duty of around 10% imposed in 2021. Duties are even higher when it comes to synthetic-fibre-based products. For example, the basic customs duty on polyester fabric is 20%, which raises the cost of synthetic fabric in the market. While garment exporters are allowed to import fabrics duty-free under the advance authorisation scheme, it is currently extremely restrictive and rigid. A few simple but far-reaching reforms can enable Indian exporters to access fabric at globally competitive prices, on a par with their Bangladeshi counterparts. First, simplify the input-output norms and allow exporters to import fabrics on self-certification basis with post-export audit, on the lines of the EU. Second, allow exporters to import inputs against export orders or contracts without prior licence. Finally, allow exporters or third parties to pool inputs or maintain bonded warehouses for multi-party use and treat sales of fabric to exporters as deemed exports. In addition to these, rationalisation of import duties on both cotton and synthetic fibres, yarn, and fabrics would eliminate the substantial disability Indian garment exporters face on account of raw material. The third ace that India must play is a package of carefully crafted policy measures and reforms for the garment sector to enhance competitiveness to world-beating levels. Such measures would include a suitable incentive scheme for the garment sector — one that is easy to avail and is export- and job-centric. The scheme would essentially function as an employment-linked incentive (ELI) — rewarding companies not just for production volumes, but for the number of new jobs they create and sustain in the sector. For it to be truly effective, such a scheme should be skewed towards large manufacturing units that employ, say, 1,000+ workers, to drive economies of scale and higher productivity. The government must also extend the Rebate of State & Central Taxes and Levies (RoSCTL) — which refunds embedded taxes to exporters — beyond 2026 to keep Indian apparel prices competitive globally. In addition to incentives, the government must fast-track the completion and operationalisation of the new PM MITRA textile parks. These parks should become magnets for textile and garment manufacturers through world-class infrastructure, responsive governance, and easier regulation around land, labour, and environment. The goal must be to make India the supplier of choice in terms of cost and reliability. The apparel sector can lift millions out of poverty, as seen in Bangladesh, where garment work has empowered women at scale. India can replicate and surpass that model by consciously steering policy to favour labour-intensive growth. The encouraging news is that global brands are already showing interest. From Japan to West Asia, buyers are in talks to tap into India's expanding production capacity and favourable incentive structure. This confidence, combined with the right policy push, could help India achieve the government's ambitious target of $100 billion in textile and apparel exports by 2030, up from roughly $30-40 billion (including yarn and fabric) today. Achieving this would vault India into the upper ranks of global apparel exporters, close in on rivals and create an estimated 2.5 crore new jobs by 2030 — a transformation with profound social and economic benefits. Ashish Dhawan is founder-CEO and Piyush Doshi is operating partner, The Convergence Foundation. The views expressed are personal.
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Centre advises UP to assess Yamuna rubber dam's potential impact on Taj Mahal foundation
The Centre has advised the Uttar Pradesh government to scientifically assess the potential impact of the proposed Yamuna rubber dam on the Taj Mahal's foundation and structural integrity, Lok Sabha was told Thursday. The state government plans to construct the rubber dam 1.5 km downstream of the monument in Agra. A rubber dam is made of fabric coated with rubber. The height of the rubber dam can be adjusted by regulating the amount of water or air inside it. It is fixed on a concrete foundation and can be inflated or deflated to control the river's flow. In a written reply to Lok Sabha, Minister of State of Jal Shakti Raj Bhushan Choudhary said Uttar Pradesh's Irrigation and Water Resources Department has been 'advised to conduct a detailed scientific assessment & Hydro geological study of the potential impact of impounding water through the proposed rubber dam on the foundation and structural integrity of the Taj Mahal…' He said the state has also been asked to furnish details of a mechanism to ensure continuous flow in the river 'so as to tackle water quality'. 'Upon receipt of such proposals, NMCG (National Mission on Clean Ganga) undertakes a detailed examination to assess potential impacts on river morphology, ambient environment, structural integrity of the proposed structures, etc. before granting approval. This review also considers the status of statutory clearances obtained from relevant departments and agencies, as applicable,' the minister said in response to a question by BJP member Rajkumar Chahar. In March 2019, the Uttar Pradesh government had sought clearance for the project from the NMCG, which comes under the Jal Shakti Ministry. The same year, the state also moved a proposal seeking environmental clearance. According to the proposal, 28.975 hectares — comprising river areas, government land, barren land and agricultural land — are required for the dam and other facilities. In 2022, the Jal Shakti Ministry informed Rajya Sabha that as per the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) there was no threat to the stability of the foundation of Taj Mahal. 'Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has informed that there is no threat to the stability of the foundation of Taj Mahal. It is further informed by ASI that regular monitoring is done by ASI in this regard and that the monument is in a good state of conservation,' said Bishweswar Tudu, then Minister of State for Jal Shakti, in a written reply to Lok Sabha on August 1, 2022. Tudu's reply came in response to Rajya Sabha member Dr Ashok Bajpai, who had asked 'whether government is aware that for want of a dam/barrage on river Yamuna, there is a threat to the stability of the foundation of the iconic Taj Mahal'.
