'Perplexed' by extra 25% tariff as US told us to buy Russian oil: EAM Jaishankar
Foreign minister
S Jaishankar
Thursday defended India's energy imports from Russia, saying the US (former Biden administration) wanted India to do "everything to stabilise the world energy markets, including buying oil from Russia".
After meeting his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Moscow, Jaishankar said, "Incidentally, we also buy oil from America and that amount has been increasing. So, quite honestly, we are very perplexed at the logic of this argument that is referred to". He was replying to a question on President Trump slapping an additional 25% tariff on India, accusing it of profiteering from Russian oil and bankrolling Russia's war on Ukraine.
Jaishankar pointed out that China, not India, is the biggest buyer of oil from Moscow. "We aren't a country that has (had) the biggest trade surge with Russia after 2022 (start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict)," he said.
Jaishankar also called on President Vladimir Putin. "Appreciate his sharing perspectives on the global situation and recent developments on Ukraine," he said on X, adding preparations for the Modi-Putin summit towards the end of the year are well underway.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Telematics Will Shift Tech Into High Gear: 7 Projected Changes Over the Next 10 Years
TechBullion
Undo
Jaishankar said he and Lavrov discussed possible outcomes from India-Russia annual summit that will have Putin visiting India towards the end of the year. 'We've looked at energy, including not just fossil fuel energy but also nuclear energy where we have a very strong history of cooperation with Russia...very good discussions on fertilizer supply,' he said.
Jaishankar and Lavrov discussed issues related to Ukraine war, West Asia and reform of global governance, while taking stock of bilateral relations.
On terrorism, Jaishankar said he conveyed India's strong resolve to adopt a zero-tolerance policy against terrorism and its sovereign right to defend citizens against cross-border terrorism.
He also raised the issue of Indians serving in the Russian Army, expressing hope that the Russian side would expeditiously resolve these matters.
'We believe relations between India and Russia have been among the steadiest of the major relationships in the world after the Second World War.
Geo-political convergence, leadership contacts and popular sentiment remain its key drivers,' he said. 'Our defence and military-technical cooperation also remains robust. Russia supports India's Make in India goals, including through joint production and technology transfer,' Jaishankar said.
On global and multilateral cooperation, both sides reaffirmed their shared commitment to reform of global governance. 'We underlined the imperative to expand and energise the UN Security Council to reflect contemporary realities. Our collaboration in G20, Brics and the SCO remains deep-rooted and forward looking,' Jaishankar said, adding on conflicts India's approach continues to emphasise dialogue and diplomacy as essential to resolving it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Emmanuel Macron calls PM Modi, discusses Gaza & Trump meeting on Ukraine war
French President Emmanuel Macron called up Prime Minister Narendra Modi and shared his assessment on the recent meetings between US President Donald Trump, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders. Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin had called Modi to share his 'insights' on the meeting with Trump in Alaska. The Prime Minister's office said on Thursday: 'Today, Prime Minister Narendra Modi received a phone call from the President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron.' 'The leaders exchanged views on the ongoing efforts for peaceful resolution of conflicts in Ukraine and the West Asia region,' the PMO said. 'President Macron shared assessment on the recent meetings held between the leaders of the Europe, US and Ukraine in Washington. He also shared his perspectives on the situation in Gaza,' it said. The PMO statement said Modi reiterated India's consistent support for peaceful resolution of conflicts and early restoration of peace and stability. Modi posted on X: 'Had a very good conversation with my friend President Macron. Exchanged views on efforts for peaceful resolution of conflicts in Ukraine and in West Asia. Reaffirmed our commitment to further strengthen the India-France strategic partnership.' Macron said, in a post on X: 'I have just spoken with Prime Minister @NarendraModi. We coordinated our positions on the war in Ukraine in order to move towards a just and lasting peace, with strong guarantees for Ukraine and Europe's security.' 'On trade issues, we agreed to strengthen our economic exchanges and our strategic partnership in all areas — this is the key to our sovereignty and independence,' he said. Following up on the AI Action Summit held in Paris last February, the French President said, 'we are working towards the success of the AI Impact Summit to be held in New Delhi in 2026.' 'For more effective multilateralism, we agreed to work closely together in preparation for the French presidency of the G7 and the Indian presidency of the BRICS in 2026,' Macron said. The PMO said that the leaders also 'reviewed progress in the bilateral cooperation agenda, including in the areas of trade, defence, civil nuclear cooperation, technology and energy. They reaffirmed joint commitment to strengthen India-France Strategic Partnership…' The PMO said Macron conveyed support for early conclusion of the India-EU FTA.
India.com
26 minutes ago
- India.com
Is Trump Ready To Risk Key Ally India For His America-First Agenda? Nikki Haley Sounds Alarm
Washington: 'To achieve America's foreign policy goals of outcompeting China, few objectives are more critical than getting relations between Washington and New Delhi back on track,' wrote Nikki Haley, U.S. President Donald Trump's fellow Republican and former U.N. ambassador, in an op-ed for Newsweek. She urged that India must be treated 'like the prized free and democratic partner that it is, not an adversary like China, which has thus far avoided sanctions for its Russian oil purchases, despite being one of Moscow's largest customers'. She warned that undoing decades of diplomatic momentum with the only Asian power capable of balancing Beijing would be a 'strategic disaster'. She also highlighted India's role in shifting supply chains away from China. 'While the Trump administration works to bring manufacturing back to our shores, India stands alone in its potential to manufacture at a China-like scale for products that cannot be quickly or efficiently produced here, like textiles, inexpensive phones and solar panels,' she said. Add Zee News as a Preferred Source Haley described New Delhi as a 'crucial asset to the free world's security', stressing that unlike authoritarian China, a rising democratic India strengthens the global order. Trump, however, has unsettled both allies and critics by threatening to impose an additional 25 per cent tariff on India for importing discounted oil from Russia. The measure comes on top of a similar levy already rolled out this month, taking the total duty to 50 per cent. Once hailed as Washington's counterweight to China, New Delhi now finds itself grouped with Brazil, whose President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has already threatened retaliation. Beijing, the largest buyer of Russian crude, has been spared from similar penalties. 'Biggest Mistake' Geopolitical analyst Fareed Zakaria joined the wave of criticism. Speaking to CNN, he called the tariff push 'America's biggest foreign policy mistake', warning that even if Trump walks back the decision, 'the damage is done'. According to him, India now views the United States as 'unreliable, its willingness to be brutal to those whom it calls its friends' and may deepen its ties with Russia while easing tensions with China. 'Stupidest Tactical Move' Economist Jeffrey Sachs struck a similar note. On 'Breaking Points' with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, he said the White House is effectively binding the BRICS bloc closer together. He branded the tariffs 'the stupidest tactical move in U.S. foreign policy' and labelled Trump 'the great unifier of BRICS'. 'Tariff Tantrum' The pushback has reached Capitol Hill as well. Senior Congressman Gregory Meeks, a Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, denounced the policy as a 'tariff tantrum' that risks dismantling over two decades of strategic, economic and cultural ties. 'We have deep strategic, economic and people-to-people ties. Concerns should be addressed in a mutually respectful way consistent with our democratic values,' he said.
