Jammu and Kashmir: Rahul Gandhi to sponsor education of 22 children who lost their parents in Pak shelling
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump tantrums complicate India's strategic challenges
There's something about Donald Trump's outbursts against India, which even benchmarked by his own standards, feel more unhinged than usual. Particularly revealing is the so-called threat of penalty against India for purchasing oil from Russia, as if India were a recalcitrant schoolkid and the American President our class monitor. Trump's attacks on India — the uncouth language and sneering style — seem to be personally motivated, well beyond the stated aim of rebalancing US trade numbers. (AFP) There is zero ideology at play here. Until a few months ago, Trump called Vladimir Putin smart and a friend. He thought nothing of shouting, as cameras captured it all, at Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's President, inside the Oval Office. And let's not forget that in his first election, his political opponents accused his campaign of being influenced by Russia. Trump has been dreaming of a rare earths deal with either Kyiv or Moscow. So to hector India on relations with Russia is not just out of line; it's a display of staggering hypocrisy. Trump's attacks on India — the uncouth language and sneering style — seem to be personally motivated, well beyond the stated aim of rebalancing US trade numbers. If one were to borrow from the language of therapy and gender studies, these are the irrational rants of a bruised male ego hell bent on gaslighting his partner with bullying tactics and fantastical claims. What pushed Trump, never known for reasonableness, over the edge? Trump's obsessive fixation on his administration's role in Operation Sindoor is positively weird. Do you remember Bill Clinton talking like this when he read the riot act to then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the middle of the Kargil war of 1999? Or David Cameron, UK's Prime minister during the 26/11 terror attacks making a song and dance of the fact that he and members of his government had been working the phone lines to leaders in both India and Pakistan. The world will get involved in any military conflict between two nuclear nations. India will leverage global diplomacy to underscore concerns on terrorism emanating out of Pakistan. Pakistan will create deliberate panic about the threat of a nuclear conflict to get the world to pay attention. All this is par for the course. This is nowhere close to another nation being allowed to set the terms for a peace pact or having a seat at the table when this is thrashed out. But Trump can't seem to separate a front channel from a back channel. And is driven by puerile self-aggrandisement. Is it pure coincidence that Trump's announcement came just hours after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's elaboration of the US role in Operation Sindoor and the calls from American VP JD Vance? From the floor of Parliament, Modi asserted that Indian airpower had brought Pakistan to its knees. And that when Vance called, India made it clear that the call for a cessation in hostilities would have to come from the Pakistani DGMO. If Trump were looking for flattery and a thank you card, he did not get anything remotely close to it. Did this tip him over? Or was it that he simply could not get the trade deal he wanted? Either way, it reveals the trade deal-for-ceasefire claim to be absolutely hollow. If anything, it shows Indian negotiators held their ground, sending him into a spiral. What's less clear is why we are still part of these trade negotiations. Yes, it's true that the rising tensions between India and America have only added to our basket of strategic challenges. What former Chief of Defence Staff Bipin Rawat used to call the threat of a two-and-a-half front war has clearly snowballed into a three-and-a-half front conflict scenario. Pakistan is structurally and institutionally committed to waging a proxy war against India. Its patron-in-chief, China provides it not just weaponry, but live inputs during the Operation Sindoor war as confirmed by the Army. And relations with Bangladesh have entered a new phase of friction. China has already used money to convert Pakistan into a vassal State. Now it's trying a similar debt diplomacy with Dhaka. In June, China hosted a trilateral meeting of foreign secretaries from Pakistan and Bangladesh in Kunming. It is quite obviously trying to build an alternative grouping to the Saarc. The neighbourhood game may not be conclusively settled: Bangladesh is a work in progress. But the writing on the wall is clear. India is in the middle of a wary rapprochement process with China but let's not forget the revelation of the deputy Army chief Lt General Rahul Singh 'China used Pakistan like a borrowed knife against India'. The friction with America could not, in that sense, have come at a more delicate time. But surely the answer is not to allow a bully to trample all over our self-respect as Indians. I respect the diplomats who argue that hunkering down and negotiating on the quiet is in India's best interests. But speaking from sheer sentiment, why not call out the business links between Trump's family and Pakistan? World Liberty Financial, a privately owned US crypto firm reported to have a majority shareholding by the Trump family, has signed a deal in April with the hastily convened Crypto Council in Pakistan. We often say, Trump is first a businessman and then a President. So why are more questions not being asked about this agreement signed just days after the Pahalgam attack. As veteran diplomat Dilip Sinha told me, 'India's challenge is how to save the relationship with the US from the chaos that Trump has created.' Agreed. But sometimes the best practice with a bully is to ignore him. Walking away is less harmful than staying in when the other circumstances are not changing. Barkha Dutt is an award-winning journalist and writer. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Tariffs as a tool to extort, and slight India's sovereignty
US President Donald Trump, in an executive order dated July 31, announced imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian imports, on grounds of national emergency and lack of reciprocity. Trump has also said that he would impose an undetermined 'penalty' on India for buying oil and weapons from Russia. This latest measure is further evidence of the complete derision with which the Trump administration deals with its partners and with international law. Insulting a partner's economy by calling it 'dead', as Trump has done with India, undermines the cardinal principles of mutual respect and sovereign equality that are fundamental to international relations. The American penalty threat to India also violates general international laws of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the ICJ. (HT Photo) It is worth noting that India and the US have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since March 2025. Despite the ongoing negotiations, the Trump administration announced reciprocal tariffs on India in April, which were then put on hold, subject to the sides quickly agreeing to an interim trade deal. The two sides have not reached an agreement on an interim trade deal because, reportedly, India is unwilling to open its agricultural and dairy markets. This stance is understandable, as it aims to protect India's politically-sensitive farming sector. The US announcement of a 25% tariff is a blatant attempt to pressure India into agreeing to a trade deal. As per the executive order, this additional tariff will remain until the two sides agree to a trade deal. The US is trying to negotiate while holding a gun to India's head. These tariffs would hit Indian exports to the US, especially of labour-intensive sectors such as textiles. Additionally, the US imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian goods is a blatant violation of international law. It not only breaches the most favoured nation principle laid down in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) but also violates the US's bound tariff commitments — a promise not to impose tariffs that exceed the rates mutually agreed upon — under Article II of GATT. The current situation extends beyond merely imposing high tariff rates. Trump's assertion that India would incur a penalty for purchasing oil and weapons from Russia constitutes a frontal assault on India's sovereignty. It's unclear whether this penalty refers to additional tariffs or something different. Regardless, the threat of such a penalty violates several fundamental canons of international law. Let us examine this under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which both India and the US are founding members. Under the WTO law, a member country is not allowed to adopt unilateral trade measures against another member country unless supported by the WTO agreement. A key provision in this regard is that a WTO member country can limit or even forbid trade with another member country on grounds of national security. This principle is codified in Article XXI of GATT, which, inter alia, allows a country to take any actions it deems necessary for protecting its essential security interests during times of war or other emergencies in international relations. This includes measures such as imposing a trade embargo. The WTO panels have interpreted this principle narrowly. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents an emergency in international relations. This situation could potentially empower the US to sever its trade ties with Russia. However, the US cannot legally justify restricting trade with countries that engage in commerce with Russia. Imposing additional tariffs on India would be too disconnected from the security threats posed by Russia's aggression in Ukraine to the US, making such an action implausible. The American penalty threat to India also violates the general international law of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the International Court of Justice in the US v Nicaragua case. From whom to buy oil and weapons is part of India's reserved domain, that is, part of India's sovereign economic and foreign policy. While the US may disapprove of India's policy choices and may seek to influence them through legal measures, it cannot impose unlawful actions — such as tariffs that are WTO-inconsistent — to coerce India into signing a trade deal or to punish it for lawfully trading with Russia. This, as international lawyer Marko Milanovic describes it, can be characterised as coercion-as-extortion, which violates customary international law. However, viewing the latest actions of Trump merely from the vantage point of international trade would mean missing the woods for the trees. The US, under Trump, appears determined to wage a war with international law and the liberal international order it assiduously built after World War II. The US has traditionally maintained a policy of exceptionalism regarding international law, viewing itself as 'distinct' and thus an 'exception' to the rules that apply to other countries. However, the Trump administration has escalated this attitude to a whole new level. American professor Mark Pollack has rightly described Trump as a 'hostile change agent' in international law who adopts unilateral measures that undermine the international rule of law and topple the law-based order. This is different from many past American presidents who might be characterised as 'traditional change agents' trying to persuade others to accept change based on reinterpretation of existing norms or even adoption of new ones. The real worry is that the current hostility to international law might get so entrenched that it would be difficult to reverse it even after Trump leaves office. Keeping this larger picture in mind, India should stand up against American bullying. While the US is undoubtedly a significant partner for India, New Delhi should send a clear message that it cannot be taken for granted. One effective way to convey this message would be to legally challenge the US's illegal tariffs at the WTO's dispute settlement body. A just and fair rule-based international order is the best antidote to Trumpian unilateralism. India, an essential member of the comity of nations, should take a lead in industriously defending the international rule of law. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice-dean (research), Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Shadow over India-US ties
US President Donald Trump's outburst against India on social media in recent days, coupled with the announcement of a 25% tariff on all imports from India, is extraordinary in more ways than one, apart from being factually incorrect. The Indian economy is far from 'dead', as Trump described it in a social media post while railing against India's trade with Russia. India is the world's fastest-growing major economy and will become its fourth largest this year. Trump himself was quite bullish on economic cooperation and a trade deal with India, if the joint statement released after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the US in February this year is any indication. 'The leaders resolved to expand trade and investment to make their citizens more prosperous, nations stronger, economies more innovative, and supply chains more resilient. They resolved to deepen the US-India trade relationship to promote growth that ensures fairness, national security and job creation', it said while setting a goal of taking bilateral trade between India and the US to $500 billion by 2030. This is not the language countries or leaders use while dealing with 'dead' economies. What Trump has sought to do, in effect, is insist that the US should have a say in determining India's strategic choices, even after New Delhi has made it clear that it would prefer to maintain strategic autonomy based on national interests. (REUTERS) Indian exports will undoubtedly suffer once the US raises tariff barriers, but that threat is unlikely to force New Delhi to play Washington's game in crucial sectors such as agriculture and dairy, which India has safeguarded in recent trade deals, because there will be severe domestic consequences if these areas are opened up in the way Trump wants them to be. As commerce minister Piyush Goyal has said, New Delhi will have to safeguard its vital national interests, which include sourcing energy and military equipment from Russia, with which it has a legacy relationship. What Trump has sought to do, in effect, is insist that the US should have a say in determining India's strategic choices, even after New Delhi has made it clear that it would prefer to maintain strategic autonomy based on national interests. Trump also cut deals with the European Union, China, Japan and South Korea ahead of his self-imposed August 1 deadline for reciprocal tariffs, all involving pledges of billions of dollars in investments. There was even a deal with Pakistan, which Trump described just seven years ago as a 'safe haven' for terrorists that has given the US 'nothing but lies and deceit'. On Friday, the Pakistan government got a tariff rate of 19%, down from the original 29%. Trump's taunt about developing Pakistan's energy reserves to sell oil to India, coming on the back of his near-daily claims about ending hostilities between India and Pakistan in May, will hardly endear him to anyone in New Delhi. Sure, contradictions in the India-US relationship have not come to the fore for the first time. Since the turnaround in bilateral relations following India's nuclear tests in 1998, the two sides have learnt to manage their differences while enhancing areas of convergence. What is different this time is Trump's blunt and offensive communication strategy, where 'a friend' is being openly berated and insulted in the public space. New Delhi has so far not responded sharply, and Trump may only be using tariffs to build pressure — talks for a trade deal are continuing — and the US president has successfully deployed this strategy to have his way with multiple countries, including once-close allies such as Canada. But such whimsical and erratic decision-making has the potential to influence perceptions and impact bilateral ties that both countries have invested much in since the 2000s. The leadership on both sides needs to guard against such a turn of events.
