Indian envoy to China meets top Chinese foreign ministry official, discuss bilateral ties
The meeting between Indian Ambassador to China
Pradeep Kumar Rawat
and China's Vice Foreign Minister
Sun Weidong
on Thursday is the first diplomatic engagement between the two countries post the
Operation Sindoor
.
Both sides expressed their willingness to work together to earnestly implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two countries, the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said.
The two sides are also working out ways to promote cultural exchanges and mutually beneficial cooperation, properly manage differences, and promote the development of China-India relations along a healthy and stable track, it said.
The two sides also exchanged views on the issues of common concern, the statement added.
Live Events
Sun is the former Chinese Ambassador to India and currently Chinese Foreign Ministry's pointsman on South Asia.
Thursday's meeting also took place as the two countries are finalising preparations to resume the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra in Tibet for the Indian pilgrims.
The Yatra, when it starts, would be the first among the steps being initiated by the two countries after normalising the relations after over four-year long military standoff in eastern Ladakh, which had brought the ties to a standstill.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) announced on April 26 that the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra is set to take place from June to August via two routes -- Lipulekh Pass in Uttarakhand and Nathu La in Sikkim.
The Yatra was suspended initially in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently because of the military standoff in eastern Ladakh.
Following complete disengagement of troops at Demchok and Depsang under a pact sealed in October last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping during their meeting at Russia's Kazan agreed to revive various bilateral dialogue mechanisms.
The two sides then held a series of meetings in the last few months aimed at normalising the bilateral relations.
Earlier, Rawat and Sun had met on April 9 and exchanged views on bilateral ties and cooperation in various fields.
Thursday's meeting between the two diplomats comes amid Operation Sindoor that India launched in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that saw 26 people dead.
Tensions between India and Pakistan, Beijing's all-weather ally, escalated after the Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in the early hours of May 7.
The four days of on-ground hostilities from both sides ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10.
The Rawat-Sun meeting also took place amid growing concerns in India over China's export controls on the rare earth metals.
According to the International Energy Agency, currently China accounts for 61 per cent of global mined rare earth production, but controls 92 per cent of the global output.
Rare earths are a group of metals consisting of 17 elements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
14 minutes ago
- Hans India
AP fast emerging as best investment destination: CM
Singapore: Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, who chose to go to Singapore professedly to rebuild ties that he believes had strained under the previous administration, has positioned the state as a burgeoning investment destination, citing abundant opportunities in key sectors like ports and green energy. During his ongoing official visit to Singapore, he affirmed that the state was actively implementing progressive policies designed to attract Singaporean enterprises. On Sunday, Chief Minister Naidu met with Shilpak Ambule, the Indian High Commissioner to Singapore, with whom the discussions centered on strengthening economic ties and exploring investment avenues. High Commissioner Ambule underscored the significant recognition and respect the 'CBN Brand' commanded within Singapore's government and industrial sectors. Chief Minister Naidu, recalling the earlier collaboration on the Amaravati capital city project, acknowledged Singapore's withdrawal between 2019 and 2024 due to unforeseen developments. He stated that a key objective of his current visit was to address past misunderstandings and rebuild the narrative through renewed engagement. The Chief Minister detailed Andhra Pradesh's newly introduced investment policies, reiterating the state's ambitious goal of achieving 160 gigawatt of green energy generation. He informed the High Commissioner that green hydrogen projects are already underway in Visakhapatnam (in partnership with NTPC) and Kakinada. Solidifying the state's technological aspirations, CM Naidu announced that Andhra Pradesh was set to establish India's first-ever Quantum Valley in Amaravati under the India Quantum Mission. He also confirmed that global tech giant Google was setting up a data center in Visakhapatnam. Highlighting the state's industrial potential, CM Naidu pointed out that regions like Rayalaseema offered highly conducive conditions for the establishment of defence, aerospace, electronics, and automobile manufacturing units. He expressed his view that Andhra Pradesh could serve as a strategic gateway for Singaporean investments into India and sought support to facilitate this. High Commissioner Ambule also noted that 83% of Singapore's population benefited from public housing projects. In response, Minister P. Narayana provided an overview of Andhra Pradesh's housing initiatives. The meeting also focused on collaboration in fields such as Artificial Intelligence, startups, medical device research, and academic partnerships between universities in Andhra Pradesh and Singapore. Ministers Nara Lokesh and TG Bharat, along with senior government officials from Andhra Pradesh, were present during the discussions.
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals
The US tariff saga has gone through many twists and turns. And many more are likely left. The ratcheting up of tariffs last month is broader and higher than expected. In late May, the view was that while the extant US average tariff rate was around 13-14 per cent, it was headed towards 18-20 per cent. Much of the increase was expected to be focused on ASEAN, where the tariff rate would be raised to that of China's to eliminate transshipment of Chinese exports to the US via the region. While those on Vietnam and Indonesia were in line with expectations, the additional tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and Mexico were not. Nor was the higher 50 per cent rate on copper. However, negotiations are ongoing, including with India, the EU, and Korea. If this week's Japan deal is any guide, tariffs on these economies will likely be half of the threatened levels. But, even at the reduced rate, if these, along with those on EU and the likely extensions of global sectoral tariffs to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, are realised, then the effective tariff rate could well exceed 20 per cent. All eyes are therefore on August 1, which is the new deadline set by the administration for countries to finalise trade deals. But there is an upcoming and surprisingly overlooked event that could easily make these trade deals moot and plunge the tariff discussions into more uncertainty. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that tariffs imposed using the provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the authority granted by the Act. The ruling did not consider the current conditions in the US to be a 'state of emergency,' which is needed to invoke IEEPA, to be convincing nor the use of tariffs to address it. Tariffs could be imposed, if the government so desired, but via the other options at its disposal. Not IEEPA. A federal appeals court granted the government a stay on the order and is slated to begin hearing arguments on the appeal on July 31. All the universal, reciprocal, and fentanyl-related tariffs are based on IEEPA. The tariffs unaffected are the Section 301 tariffs on China imposed under Trump 1.0 and extended by the Biden administration, and the global sectoral tariffs on aluminum, autos and auto parts, copper, and steel that were imposed under Section 232. It is unclear how the appeals court will rule. But regardless of the decision, either party is likely to move the case to the Supreme Court. If the tariffs under IEEPA are eventually disallowed by the US Supreme Court, the government will shift to other options. Tariffs are central to this administration's economic agenda and will thus be pursued. Unlike those under IEEPA, the tariffs under the other options are more cumbersome, limited in scope, and significantly more resource intensive. But they can be implemented in a compressed time frame if the administration so desires. A potential sequence of such actions could be the following. Use Section 122 to impose tariffs of 15 per cent for 150 days on all countries (justified to address balance of payments needs or to prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar). At the same time, ratchet up the tariffs on China that were imposed under Section 301 in Trade War 1.0 by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Keep tariffs on steel and aluminum at 50 per cent (as on copper) and raise that on autos from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hasten the ongoing Section 232 (sector specific on grounds on national economic security) investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and lumber to bring these under the tariff net of 25 per cent – 50 per cent. Use Section 338 to impose tariffs on countries that are deemed to discriminate specifically against US commercial interests (such as digital services taxes by Australia, the EU, Canada, India, and others, although the taxes are imposed on other countries too). Complete Section 301 investigations on large trading partners (some are ongoing, for example, on the EU and Brazil). These investigations are resource intensive as they need to first identify the specific policy of a trading partner that is the basis of 'unfair competition 'and then quantify the 'harm' that such policies impose on US consumers for each product and for each country. The tariff rate needs to be commensurate with the harm caused and, thus, differ, from product to product for each country. Finally, roll all tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. As one can imagine, this is an arduous and uncertain process. However, the direction of travel is more certain — the average effective tariff rate is likely to settle close to 20 per cent. Needless to say, the country- and product-specific impact of Sections 301 and 232 tariffs could be vastly different than under IEEPA. Markets so far have largely shrugged off the announced new tariffs. This is understandable given the quick deescalation after the strong market and corporate reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs; the possibility that the August 1 deadline is postponed; and the eventual negotiated tariff rates could be different from those announced. However, a court ruling on IEEPA could well turn both the August 1 deadline and the trade deals moot, including potentially that with India. If the basis of these deals, that is, IEEPA, is no longer admissible, then we are headed for renegotiations with tariffs under sections 301 and 232. These could be starkly different than those that are being negotiated now. The uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals. US courts might well upset the best laid plans of mice and men. Continued uncertainty is the only certainty. The writer is Chief Emerging Markets Economist, J P Morgan. Views are personal
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The language debate in Maharashtra and a soft sedition
A few weeks ago, a shopkeeper was allegedly attacked in Mumbai by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena workers for not speaking Marathi. Similar attacks have been reported across Maharashtra and other parts of India. In Bengaluru, destruction of Hindi-written signage is quite frequent, and in Tamil Nadu, anti-Hindi campaigns have a long history — they often resurface in response to perceived threats to Tamil. Even in Delhi, there is, at times, a subtle exclusion of those who speak with a southern accent or hail from the Northeast. Instances of regional prejudice feed into the trend of linguistic vigilantism that is increasingly spreading across the nation. These tendencies are not secessionist, but they undermine national integration and constitute a new type of 'soft sedition'. They represent a kind of regional hegemony that lives by cultural bullying, verbal violence and everyday discrimination. The underlying causes of this crisis resurfaced with the implementation of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, especially its three-language equation. NEP aims to develop multilingualism and enhance national integration, but its implementation requires students to be taught three languages, including at least two Indian languages. On paper, it allows states to choose these languages. However, in many parts of non-Hindi India, it was seen as a surreptitious advancement of Hindi and perceived as a threat to local languages. Politicians from all parties and regions play on people's fears. They have started muddying the waters again — overt threats against Hindi speakers and migrants from Northern regions are being justified as a counter to Hindi imposition. Even the national parties are hesitant to address this problem, for fear of alienating their state units. The crisis requires us to look again at the philosophical and constitutional basis of the republic. Article 1 of the Constitution says, 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.' This choice of words reflects a conscious rejection of the idea that states are sovereign, cultural or political entities. Unlike a federation that unites countries through treaties, India is a civilisational polity where states derive their legitimacy from the Union. The 1956 linguistic reorganisation was intended to accommodate diversity through better administration. Language does create a strong sense of identity and belonging in India, but it needs to be framed as a common resource — not the right of any state. It is the means through which we connect, share ideas, and forge relationships. Our linguistic diversity should not be a reason for division, but a means by which we understand and are understood. The Constitution gives every Indian citizen freedom through Articles 14, 19 and 21. Every Indian has the right not only to speak their language but also to work and reside throughout the country. A Bihari living in Bengaluru or a Manipuri living in Mumbai is not an outsider; they are equal citizens of the nation. This is not just a cultural sensitivity issue, but a matter of constitutional morality, which Ambedkar invoked while warning against majoritarian tyranny. Any attempt by political or local actors to create linguistic conformity is a violation of the Constitution. Linguistic violence impacts internal migration, which is essential for India's economy, by making workers fear discrimination in unfamiliar states. Such chauvinism exacerbates mistrust between linguistic groups. This anxiety proliferates into educational contexts, job interviews and housing preferences, shrinking the ambit of what it means to be Indian. Cultural majoritarianism does not simply become political, as Ashis Nandy warned, but alters how people see themselves and their social location. This leads us to refer to the phrase, 'soft sedition'. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has updated how we interpret threats to the nation. BNS's Section 152 acknowledges that threats to the nation-state do not always take the form of rebellion, insurrection, or armed revolt. Language-based exclusion, violence and campaigning carve out zones of exclusion. Such ideological subversion must, therefore, be addressed as a potential national security threat and seen as an assault on 'the unity and integrity of India'. Supporters of regional identities argue that linguistic pride is crucial to India's federal character. They are not wrong. India's strength has always been its ability to bind together many languages, cultures and traditions. But diversity should not be confused with division. Love for one's mother tongue does not condone hostility towards another. The executive must act quickly and decisively. Law enforcement agencies should be directed to identify, monitor, report and prosecute language-based hate crimes under the new BNS provisions. Political parties disseminating linguistic hatred must be held accountable under the law. As the final protector and guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must also act. The Centre should consider launching a National Linguistic Harmony Mission, preferably in coordination with the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Culture, to monitor interstate animosity, promote mutual respect and create outlets where citizens who speak different languages can interact. The Home Ministry should issue public advisories clarifying that verbal abuse and online troll attacks based on language will be considered a crime under the BNS. In the Republic of India, no one is a second-class citizen. India's strength has never come from forcing sameness, but from embracing difference. From Kalidasa and Rabindranath Tagore to Dharamvir Bharati and Premchand, our greatest voices came from different corners, yet spoke to the same soul. India does not need a lingua franca; it needs a lingua familia, where each language is celebrated without any hierarchy. This is not just a call to protect words or languages. It is a call to protect who we are as a people. If we fail to act now, we risk the very idea of India. Sharma is assistant professor, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi, and Kumar is advocate, Delhi High Court
