'Only Thing Dead Is...': BJP Shares Growth Stats After Trump's Barb, Rahul Gandhi's Endorsement
The IMF's World Economic Outlook for July ranked India second only to China among developing economies, projecting a growth rate of 6.7 per cent in 2025 and 6.4 per cent for 2026.
The BJP on Sunday offered a subtle rebuttal to US President Donald Trump's 'dead economy" remark by sharing India's strong economic growth, supported by data from the US-based International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The IMF's World Economic Outlook ranked India second only to China among developing economies, projecting a robust growth rate of 6.7 per cent in 2025 and 6.4 per cent for 2026.
Sharing the IMF data on X, BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya took a pointed jab at Donald Trump over his 'dead economy" remark on India and mocked Rahul Gandhi for endorsing the claim.
'India continues to be the fastest-growing economy in the world, confirmed yet again by the IMF's World Economic Outlook update for July 2025," said Malviya.
'The only thing dead is Rahul Gandhi's self-respect and, if it exists, his brain," he added.
India continues to be the fastest growing economy in the world, confirmed yet again by the IMF's World Economic Outlook update for July 2025.The only thing dead is Rahul Gandhi's self-respect and, if it exists, his brain. pic.twitter.com/js3Ll5aF1N
— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) August 3, 2025
Announcing the tariff hike on Indian goods and an unspecified penalty over India's purchase of Russian crude and arms, Trump posted on Truth Social: 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their tariffs are too high, among the highest in the world."
Reacting to the claim, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi on Thursday agreed with Trump's remarks that the Indian economy is 'dead" and said he is 'glad" that the US President stated a fact.
Speaking to reporters outside Parliament, Rahul Gandhi remarked that everyone around the world acknowledges the Indian economy is 'dead"—except for the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister.
'Yes, he is right. Everybody knows this except the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. Everybody knows that the Indian economy is a dead economy. I am glad that President Trump has stated a fact. The entire world knows that the Indian economy is a dead economy," Gandhi said.
However, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor appeared to distance himself from Rahul Gandhi's remarks, stating that the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha may have had his 'own reasons" for making such a statement.
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a minute ago
- First Post
80 years after Hiroshima: Nuclear threat still looms over global security
History, with its grim cycles and painful lessons, has every reason to indict humanity. In the week marking the 80th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia announced it no longer considers itself bound by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, blaming 'the actions of Western countries' for creating a 'direct threat' to its security. Last Friday, US President Donald Trump said he had ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines 'in appropriate regions' following what he described as 'highly provocative comments' by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is ironic that nuclear weapons still exist, despite the well-known devastation they cause to the planet—and the threat of nuclear sabre-rattling remains as constant as the air we breathe. Aside from white lilies and sombre memorial services for the dead, and sympathy for those emotionally and physically maimed by the two blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, little has moved forward in practical terms. In the prologue of her book Nuclear War: A Scenario, Annie Jacobsen describes a frightening vision of what the next nuclear bomb explosion might look like. For now, it is only imagination—but reality would unfold within minutes if the bombs were ever detonated, for whatever reason. She writes: 'A 1-megaton thermonuclear weapon detonation begins with a flash of light and heat so tremendous it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend. One hundred and Eighty million degrees Fahrenheit is four or five times hotter than the temperature that occurs at the center of the Earth's sun. In the first fraction of a second this thermonuclear bomb strikes… there is light…. Soft X-ray light with a very short wavelength. The light superheats the surrounding air to a millions of degrees, creating a massive fireball that expands at millions of miles per hour. Within a few seconds, this fireball increases to a diameter of a little more than a mile (5,700 feet across), its light and heat so intense that concrete surfaces explode, metal objects melt or evaporate, stone shatters, humans instantaneously convert into combusting carbon.' This, of course, is Jacobsen's speculative scenario of what might happen if a nuclear bomb were to strike the Pentagon outside Washington. But if such an event were to occur, her imagined horror would become exact, unbearable reality. In the 653-page book The Effects of Nuclear War, authored along with Philip J Dolan, Samuel Galsstone writes, 'There are inherent difficulties in making exact measurements of weapons effects. The results are often dependent upon circumstances, which are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to control even in tests and would certainly be unpredictable in the event of an attack.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Then, after the immediate destruction there is the curse of a nuclear winter which is inevitable. A legacy of devastation, a present of peril Eighty years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed more than 200,000 people and left haunting reminders of nuclear warfare, the world remains on edge. Far from fading into the pages of history, nuclear weapons continue to cast a long, ominous shadow over global peace and security. While the world has avoided another nuclear strike since 1945, today's risks may be even more acute driven by geopolitical volatility, advancing technologies and the slow unravelling of disarmament frameworks. A world still armed to the teeth As of early 2025, the global stockpile of nuclear warheads stands at approximately 12,241, with the vast majority—over 90 per cent—held by United States and Russia. This massive arsenal is not just a relic of the Cold War but a continually modernised force, featuring increasingly sophisticated delivery systems and warhead designs, Andrew Hammond writes in The Business Times. While global treaties have aimed to curb proliferation, they have done little to dismantle the core of existing nuclear forces. Slowing clock of disarmament The post-Cold War era witnessed a surge of hope for nuclear disarmament. Treaties such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) and initiatives like the Nuclear Security Summits led to tangible reductions and enhanced controls over nuclear materials. However, this progress has since slowed, if not reversed. Today, the momentum has shifted towards rearmament. The United States is developing a new generation of nuclear weapons and has indicated an openness to resuming nuclear testing. Meanwhile, China has more than tripled its arsenal, reaching around 600 warheads. These developments have reignited fears of a new arms race, especially as Russia also pursues advanced systems like hypersonic missiles and underwater nuclear drones. Submarines are indeed deadly platforms for nuclear launches. Efforts such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which came into force in 2021, have garnered support from many non-nuclear states. Yet, they have been largely dismissed by nuclear-armed nations. The global appetite for disarmament, once buoyed by the horrors of Hiroshima, is faltering in the face of renewed strategic competition. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Tensions in a fragile world Geopolitical fault lines are increasingly volatile, exacerbating the risk of nuclear conflict. Recent exchanges between Medvedev and Trump over nuclear threats serve as stark reminders of how easily diplomatic tensions can veer into dangerous territory. Medvedev's reference to Russia's 'Dead Hand' nuclear retaliation system and Trump's counter by repositioning submarines closer to Russia are not just posturing, they reflect the peril of miscalculation in today's hyper-charged political climate. Other hotspots, including the enduring India-Pakistan conflict and North Korea's relentless nuclear testing, add layers of complexity. These regions combine deep-seated historical animosities with nuclear capabilities, making them particularly susceptible to escalation. Iran, for its part, remains a significant concern. Reeling from attacks on its nuclear facilities, Tehran may further accelerate its nuclear programme, potentially pushing other regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey toward similar ambitions. Technology: The new wildcard While nuclear weapons have always embodied existential danger, emerging technologies are making the nuclear scenario even more unpredictable. Artificial intelligence, cyber warfare and advanced missile defence systems are disrupting the traditional logic of nuclear deterrence. According to Hammond, AI-driven systems, if poorly managed, could make decisions faster than human operators can verify, increasing the likelihood of misjudgements. Meanwhile, cyberattacks on nuclear command and control systems could trigger false alarms or disable safeguards. The potential for accidental launches or misinterpreted threats has grown significantly in an era of digital warfare and machine decision-making. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During the Cold War and into the 1990s, several false alarms nearly triggered nuclear war due to technical errors and misinterpretations. In the 1950s, a flock of Canadian geese was mistaken for a Soviet bomber attack by radar systems. The 1960s saw meteor showers and radar reflections from the moon falsely indicating a missile strike, while in 1979, a human error led to a false nuclear alert, causing Norad (North American Aerospace Defense Command) to scramble fighter jets. A year later, a faulty computer chip triggered a similar scare, prompting the preparation of B-52 bombers and the President's emergency aircraft. The most serious incident occurred in 1995 when a Norwegian research rocket was misidentified by Russian systems as a US nuclear missile, prompting president Boris Yeltsin to consider a retaliatory strike, an act he ultimately resisted, narrowly avoiding catastrophe. Terrorism threat Beyond state actors, the threat of nuclear terrorism has not disappeared. While acquiring a functional nuclear weapon remains a high barrier for non-state groups, the possibility of a radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb) is far more feasible. Such a weapon would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive material, potentially causing mass panic, economic chaos and long-term contamination of urban centres.. Hammond mentions former US defence secretary Robert Gates who once remarked that the thought of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear weapon was what kept him awake at night. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Treaties undermined, norms at risk International treaties and arms control frameworks that once served as guardrails are now fraying. The Doomsday Clock, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, was set just one second from midnight earlier this year, the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe. Eighty years after Hiroshima, the world faces a dual nuclear threat: that of state-led warfare and non-state terrorism. While the horrors of 1945 forged a powerful global aversion to nuclear war, that consensus is under threat. The only way to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again is to eliminate them altogether. Eight decades on, the urgency of that mission has never been clearer.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a minute ago
- First Post
Standing tall: Bharat's strategic calm amid Trumpian turbulence
Bharat must stand its ground on tariffs and be prepared for short-term pain in pursuit of long-term strategic gain read more Modi's Bharat has to be both mild and fierce while dealing with the Trumpian turbulence. Image: The White House A bully is an intriguing phenomenon. Powerful, but insecure. Loud, yet hollow. Assertive, but deeply vulnerable. He doesn't merely seek obedience — he craves submission, preferably extracted through intimidation, manipulation, or humiliation. This classic bully syndrome is evident in how Donald Trump has approached his second term as US President, especially in foreign policy. This American trait is becoming more pronounced as 'we are moving into a post-American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people,' as author Fareed Zakaria writes in his book, The Post-American World. This new world, Zakaria adds, may not be as much about the decline of America as it is about 'the rise of the rest.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's unpredictability, ego-driven decisions, and transactional diplomacy are the result of this changing world order where America is strong, but not strong enough. Trump tries to make up for this by becoming a bully — by holding the world to ransom, as he has done with his ongoing tariff moves. The Bully Syndrome Psychiatrists note that a bully thrives when others submit or appease. The same logic applies in the case of tariffs. Yielding to Trump — or any such figure — is counterproductive. Submission only feeds the bully, inviting more demands and further concessions. That doesn't mean Bharat should react to every Trump tweet or provocation. The goal is not to be reactive but strategic — or even better, strategically proactive. Understand the adversary: When does he lash out? What motivates him? What triggers retreat? Trump's behaviour is largely driven by domestic political compulsions, election cycles, and a simplistic view of trade and tariffs. He may have become the President, but the businessman in him refuses to leave his personality. His worldview remains binary — you're either a winner or a loser, an ally or a foe, a master or a servant. Bharat, with its growing economic heft and independent foreign policy, doesn't fit into his 'ally' column. It doesn't need to. Draw Red Lines, With Poise Bharat's first move should be to clearly set boundaries with poise, not posturing. It must articulate these red lines in an unemotional, matter-of-fact manner. And the Modi government has done precisely that, as the External Affairs Ministry in an official statement on Monday (August 4) called the ongoing Trump tirade 'unjustified and unreasonable.' It also highlighted how the US itself continues to import uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EVs, and fertilisers and chemicals from Russia. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bharat needs cheap oil for its people and growth. It cannot avoid looking at cheaper options just because it suits American interests. Bharat currently consumes about 5 million barrels per day, 85 per cent of which is met through imports. And given the unprecedented growth expected to take place in the country, with GDP growth constantly hovering above 6 per cent, reports say Bharat's demand for oil will be more than that of any other country in the world. Similarly, the US needs to understand that Bharat's Russian defence ties are born out of necessity, not ideology. America's restrictive terms — high costs, limited tech transfer, source code constraints, and end-use monitoring — have pushed New Delhi towards Moscow. What works for Pakistan, an artificial construct, cannot be imposed on Bharat, a civilisational state with strategic autonomy in its DNA. Ancient Wisdom, Modern Challenges Amid Trumpian turbulence, Ved Vyasa's Mahabharata can offer timeless wisdom, urging restraint and patience, and not being overwhelmed by anger and rage. Bhishma, for instance, advises Yudhisthira in 'Raja Dharma Parva' — as translated by Bibek Debroy in The Mahabharata (Volume 8): 'One must fight for the sake of victory, not because of anger or a desire to kill.' He qualifies his statement by saying that 'if the one who is fighting uses deceit, [one] must fight back using deceit. If he fights with adharma, one must counter with adharma.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bharat need not match Trump tweet-for-tweet. Instead, it should outmanoeuvre him with strategic steadiness. Timing matters. As Bhishma says, 'Time always brings success… However, a man who is waiting for the right time should not let that moment pass.' Meanwhile, without resorting to verbal volleys or showcasing confrontational postures, Bharat can continue doing what it has been doing thus far — buying Russian arms and importing oil. Let Bharat's actions speak for themselves. Build Strategic Alliances Bhishma also advises Yudhisthira to seek new allies when oppressed by a stronger king. He says, 'If a king is oppressed by a stronger king, he must resort to three kinds of allies and friends.' Bhishma then elaborates allies and friends as 'direct allies, allies of allies, and enemies of enemies'. Time is ripe for Bharat to expand its strategic alliances. It must build strategic coalitions — both traditional and innovative. It must reorient its ties with Europe along the lines of the UK Free Trade Agreement. It must look afresh at Asian, African, and South American markets. Some of the American trade losses can be covered there: Bharat's pharma industry, for instance, could find greater footholds in these markets. Similarly, it should deepen its outreach to Asean, and continue nurturing its neighbourhood through cooperative diplomacy. Even within the American political landscape, Bharat should engage with institutions, think tanks, businesses, and lawmakers — beyond the presidency. America is more than its president. Bharat must remember that. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The goal is not to overtly challenge the Trump administration but to signal that Bharat cannot be bullied and has options. It values the US relationship but will not be boxed in. Learn from the Dragon More importantly, while dealing with Trumpian threats, Bharat should realise — and also make the Americans realise — that it has weathered greater storms in the past. It navigated alone during the Cold War, defied American fury at the time of the 1971 Bangladesh crisis, endured global isolation after the 1998 nuclear tests, and emerged stronger every time. Today's Bharat is economically sounder, militarily stronger, and diplomatically assertive. It must preserve its strategic autonomy — not for defiance, but for national interest. If Trump is unreasonable, Bharat must stand its ground — calmly, firmly. China offers an instructive example. Trump began his second term with moves to tame the Middle Kingdom. But Beijing responded with resilience, recalibration, and countermeasures. It didn't react emotionally, and eventually, the US President softened. Not out of admiration, but because confrontation wasn't delivering. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Likewise, Bharat must insist on mutual solutions. If Washington wants Delhi to move away from Russian arms, it must offer better terms. If it wants to be an energy partner, it must offer affordable, stable alternatives — without coercion. Be Mild and Fierce Bharat's strength lies not just in GDP or missiles, but in civilisational confidence. Bullies lose power when met with quiet defiance. Bharat's message should be simple: 'We value the relationship, but we are equals. We act in our interest and expect respect.' Americans, as a people, are pragmatic. Once the noise settles, they will see that Bharat's rise is a stabilising phenomenon, not a threatening one. It seeks balance, not dominance. It avoids conflict but is unafraid of it when required. The Trumpian storm must be faced with civilisational calmness and confidence — not by shouting, but by outthinking. Not by trembling, but by standing tall. Bharat must be prepared for short-term pain in pursuit of long-term strategic gain. Because in the end, the one who doesn't bend under pressure shapes the course of history. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bhishma again has a word of advice: 'People disrespect one who is mild and hate one who is fierce. Do not be mild. Do not be fierce. Be both mild and fierce.' Modi's Bharat has to be both mild and fierce while dealing with the Trumpian turbulence. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Mint
a minute ago
- Mint
Trump's U-turn: After accusing Zelensky of ‘starting war', how US is using Ukraine to justify tariff on ‘friend' India
The day was February 28, 2025 and the White House prepared to welcome Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a meeting with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office. When the two leaders met, they shook hands and politely discussed diplomatic matters among other things. Minutes later, the meeting turned into a shouting match between Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Volodymyr Zelensky after the Ukrainian president emphasised the need for 'security guarantees for Ukraine' for any deal to happen. That started the clash, with the United States accusing Ukraine of being ungrateful for American support and of 'stalling' peace talks with Russia – warning, 'You're either going to make a deal, or we're out.' 'You see the hatred he's got for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. That's tough to make a deal with that kind of hate,' Trump said as the whole world watched on LIVE television. Accused of 'starting the war', Zelensky left and the deal, that would have given the US rights to rare earth minerals in Ukraine, was not signed that day. Cut to July 2025 – Ukraine has now become the flashpoint in Donald Trump's trade war with India. In a stunning shift, Donald Trump, who once pointed the finger at Zelensky for starting the Russia-Ukraine war, has now trained his guns on India – imposing 25 per cent tariffs and additional penalties for New Delhi's business ties with Moscow, accusing New Delhi of bankrolling Vladimir Putin's war machine by buying Russian oil. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have spoken over the phone, but not met since Trump returned to the White House in January, despite both leaders expressing their desire for face-to-face talks. After one of the calls that happened in May, the US president said his call with Vladimir Putin went very well and that Moscow and Kyiv 'will immediately start negotiations' toward a ceasefire and end to the war. As Trump sounded hopeful, the Russian president said more 'compromises' were needed. By the end of the month, Trump – sensing no end to the Ukraine war – had started threatening sanctions on Russian products, warning Vladimir Putin that he was 'playing with fire'. Trump even admitted that Putin was not looking to stop Russia's war against Ukraine. 'I'm very disappointed with the conversation I had today with President Putin, because I don't think he's there, and I'm very disappointed. I'm just saying I don't think he's looking to stop, and that's too bad,' he said. Donald Trump has often portrayed himself as a dealmaker and global peacemaker, but as Russia refused to fall in line with his expectations, the US president began to show signs of frustration. Buoyed by his own expectations and frustrated over not being able to bring the Ukraine conflict to an end, Trump shifted blame outward. He slapped 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods and announced additional penalties for India's business ties with Russia. But Trump didn't stop there. He threatened even more tariffs for India's purchase of Russian oil, accusing the country of 'fueling' the Ukraine war. What could be called a striking twist, Ukraine, a country Trump had once accused of 'starting the war,' is now at the centre of his trade war with India, which he has used as a geopolitical weapon to justify the tariffs on 'friend' India.
