India slams ‘unjustified' action by US, EU over its Russian oil purchases
'The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable,' India Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said in a statement, after US President Donald Trump vowed to raise tariffs on the country over its oil purchases from Russia.
'Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.'
It did not provide further details on the measures.
India became a major buyer of Russian oil, providing a much-needed export market for Moscow after it was cut off from traditional buyers in Europe because of the Ukraine war.
New Delhi saved itself billions of dollars while bolstering Moscow's coffers.
But India on Monday argued it 'began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict'.
It also noted that Washington at that time had 'actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability.'
Trump says will 'substantially' raise tariffs on goods from India over Russian oil purchases
It pointed to what it suggested were double standards of EU and US trade with Moscow.
'It is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia,' Jaiswal added.
'Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion.'
Jaiswal singled out examples of where deals were being done with Moscow.
'Europe-Russia trade includes not just energy, but also fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel and machinery and transport equipment,' the statement added.
'Where the United States is concerned, it continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals.'
India, the world's most populous country, was one of the first major economies to engage the Trump administration in broader trade talks.
The United States is India's largest trading partner, with New Delhi shipping goods worth $87.4 billion in 2024.
India's protectionist trade policies, however, saw it run up a surplus of nearly $46 billion the same year.
On Monday, Trump said in a post to his Truth Social platform that India was 'buying massive amounts of Russian Oil' and selling it for 'big profits.'
'Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA,' he wrote.
But he did not provide details on what tariff level he had in mind.
For now, an existing 10 percent US tariff on Indian products is expected to rise to 25 percent come Thursday.
Last month, the EU and Britain sought to ramp up economic pressure on Russia to halt the war in Ukraine by slashing a price cap meant to choke off revenues from key oil exports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
30 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Revisiting August 5, 2019
Six years after the revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution on August 5, 2019 which had given special status to Jammu & Kashmir, it is time to analyse to what extent New Delhi managed to get support of local Kashmiris, and how after the Pahalgam terrorist attack and Operation Sindoor, the Modi regime failed to seek international backing on its flawed narrative about Pakistan's involvement in acts of terror in the occupied territory. The recently concluded debate in the Indian parliament on Operation Sindoor featured opposition leader Rahul Gandhi lambasting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for lying over President Donald Trump's claim of brokering a ceasefire in the May 7-10 Indo-Pak war and India losing five war planes in the armed conflict. The Kashmir conflict which, according to the Modi regime, had lost its momentum and New Delhi had fully absorbed it in Indian union after August 5 is again a high-profile international issue. How did India lose its perceived edge over its absorption of J&K on August 5, 2019? Why did the Modi regime fail to provide evidence of Pakistan's alleged involvement in the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025 in which 26 civilians were killed? How did the failure of Operation Sindoor reverse Modi's Kashmir policy, providing Pakistan a unique opportunity to forcefully raise the Kashmir issue at the international level? Certainly, frustration and anger within the Modi regime over failing to take Operation Sindoor to its desired conclusion means that for the first time since August 5, 2019, New Delhi's confidence to firmly establish its control over occupied Kashmir has been dented. A major setback after the August 5, 2019 actions was caused when following the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, President Trump stated that he was ready to help resolve the Kashmir conflict in order to establish peace in South Asia. Since signing the Shimla Pact with Pakistan in July 1972, India has maintained a consistent position that the Kashmir issue is a bilateral matter and can only be resolved through negotiations between Islamabad and Delhi. Trump's offer of mediation on Kashmir not only antagonised India but also challenged its position that Kashmir was no more an outstanding issue in the wake of its merger with India union. The Modi regime, however, miscalculated Operation Sindoor which proved counter-productive and brought the Kashmir dispute back in the limelight. The Indian Supreme Court had, in December 2023, dismissed petitions against the revocation of article 370 and legitimised the J&K merger with the Indian union, ordering that the statehood of the disputed territory be restored by September 24, 2024. Following the Supreme Court verdict, the election to the J&K Legislative Assembly, held in September-October 2024, saw the National Conference (NC) forming a coalition government along with Congress, and Omer Abdullah became the Chief Minister. Even after the election in the occupied region, the real power rested with the Governor and New Delhi continued to undermine the authority of Chief Minister. In order to further legitimise its position on J&K after August 5, the Modi regime publicised the holding of tourism conference under G-20 in Srinagar in May 2023 and launched infrastructure road, dam and power projects. But all its efforts to strengthen its hold over J&K after August 5, 2019 suffered a setback when Operation Sindoor failed and Kashmir regained its status as a dispute between Pakistan and India. Revisiting the August 5, 2019 actions, particularly the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act passed by the Indian parliament and later upheld by the Supreme Court, needs to be analysed from three angles. First is the debacle of Operation Sindoor which led to the questioning of the Indian position whereby after August 5, 2019, the target was to wrest Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan from Pakistan. Indian Defense Minister Raj Nath Singh had been threatening Pakistan that after absorbing J&K, India's next target would be Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. However, after the May 7-10 Indo-Pak war, the Modi regime is pursuing a defensive position. The recent furor in the Indian parliament in which the Modi regime was blamed by Congress and other opposition parties for mismanaging the Pahalgam episode as well as Operation Sindoor means the very stance of New Delhi after August 5 is losing credibility. On July 30, Indian opposition parties in the parliament had to stage a walkout when Prime Minister Narendra Modi avoided speaking on the floor of the assembly to respond to the allegations about the shooting down of five Indian war planes by the Pakistan Air Force and failure to provide security to tourists who were killed by terrorists in Pahalgam. Second, Pakistan lost a valuable opportunity to counter New Delhi's August 5 actions. As a result, not only India strengthened its position, particularly in the Valley, but also augmented its programme for settlement of Indian nationals. Indian authorities, following the model of the Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands in the occupied West Bank, launched the policy of grabbing Kashmiris' lands under the cover of security and development. By abrogating articles 370 and 35-A, India not only ended the so-called autonomous status of the occupied region, but also got a free hand to settle non-locals in the Muslim-majority state and allowing them to vote in elections. Even then, in the September-October 2024 elections in the disputed state, the BJP failed to get a majority. Pakistan should have exerted pressure on the Modi regime for merging J&K with India as union territories in sheer violation of UNSC resolutions. Finally, Pakistan can still compel India to amend its policy on occupied Kashmir and resolve the conflict through negotiations if it is able to put its own house in order. Simply to argue that President Trump has offered to mediate is not enough. What is required of Pakistan is to better its economy, seek political stability, ensure good governance, guarantee rule of law, and eradicate extremism, corruption and nepotism. Despite revoking article 370 and absorbing J&K, India lacks legitimacy to justify its hold over the occupied Muslim-majority state. A strong Pakistan can certainly gain support of international community for Kashmiris.
Express Tribune
30 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Will Pahalgam be a B-town boon?
Director Vivek Agnihotri said Indian viewers want films on this year's military operation. Photo: AFP Indian filmmakers are locking up the rights to film titles that can profit from the patriotism fanned by a four-day conflict with Pakistan, which killed more than 70 people, reports AFP. The nuclear-armed rivals exchanged artillery, drone and air strikes in May, after India blamed Pakistan for an armed attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir. The fighting came to an end when US President Donald Trump announced a surprise ceasefire. Now, some Bollywood filmmakers see an opportunity to cash in on the battle. India tagged its military action against Pakistan Operation Sindoor, the Hindi word for vermilion, which married Hindu women wear on their foreheads. The name was seen as a symbol of Delhi's determination to avenge those widowed in the April 22 attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam, which sparked the hostilities. Film studios have registered a slew of titles evoking the operation, including: Mission Sindoor, Sindoor: The Revenge, The Pahalgam Terror, and Sindoor Operation. "It's a story which needs to be told," said director Vivek Agnihotri. "If it was Hollywood, they would have made 10 films on this subject. People want to know what happened behind the scenes," he told AFP. Agnihotri struck box office success with his 2022 release, The Kashmir Files, based on the mass flight of Hindus from Kashmir in the 1990s. Coloured narratives The ruling right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party gave that film a glowing endorsement, despite accusations that it aimed to stir up hatred against India's minority Muslims. Since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014, some critics say Bollywood is increasingly promoting his government's ideology. Raja Sen, a film critic and screenwriter, said filmmakers felt emboldened by an amenable government. "We tried to wage a war and then we quietened down when Mr Trump asked us to. So what is the valour here?" Sen told AFP of the Pakistan clashes. Anil Sharma, known for directing rabble-rousing movies, criticised the apparent rush to make films related to the Pahalgam attack. "This is herd mentality... these are seasonal filmmakers, they have their constraints," he said. "I don't wait for an incident to happen and then make a film based on that. A subject should evoke feelings and only then cinema happens," said Sharma. Sharma's historical action flick Gadar: Ek Prem Katha (2001) and its sequel Gadar 2 (2023), both featuring Sunny Deol in lead roles, were big hits. In Bollywood, filmmakers often seek to time releases for national holidays like Independence Day, which are associated with heightened patriotic fervour. Fighter, featuring big stars Hrithik Roshan and Deepika Padukone, was released on the eve of India's Republic Day on January 25 last year. Anti-Muslim bias Though not a factual retelling, it drew heavily from India's 2019 airstrike on Pakistan's Balakot. The film received mixed-to-positive reviews but raked in $28 million in India, making it the fourth highest-grossing Hindi film of that year. This year, Chhaava, a drama based on the life of Sambhaji Maharaj, a ruler of the Maratha Empire, became the highest-grossing film so far this year. It also generated significant criticism for fuelling anti-Muslim bias. "This is at a time when cinema is aggressively painting Muslim kings and leaders in violent light," said Sen. "This is where those who are telling the stories need to be responsible about which stories they choose to tell." Sen said filmmakers were reluctant to choose topics that are "against the establishment". "If the public is flooded with dozens of films that are all trying to serve an agenda, without the other side allowed to make itself heard, then that propaganda and misinformation enters the public psyche," he said. Acclaimed director Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra said true patriotism is promoting peace and harmony through the medium of cinema. Mehra's socio-political drama Rang De Basanti (2006) won the National Film Award for Best Popular Film and was chosen as India's official entry for the Golden Globe Awards and the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. "How we can arrive at peace and build a better society? How we can learn to love our neighbours?" he asked. "How we can arrive at peace and build a better society? How we can learn to love our neighbours?" he asked. "For me that is patriotism."
Express Tribune
30 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
India's deceit of nuclear programme
Deceitful history of Indian nuclear programme is well-known to the world. On 18 May 1974, India tested its Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNEs) at Pokhran under codename 'Smiling Buddha' and underscored this reality that the country had diverted its peaceful side of nuclear programme towards weapon-based nuclear programme. Indian nuclear programme is prestige-driven. Indian PM IK Gujral, during his meeting with US President Clinton in September 1997, asserted, "I told President Clinton that when my third eye looks at the door of the Security Council Chamber it sees a little sign that says only those with economic power or nuclear weapons are allowed. I said to him it's very difficult to achieve economic wealth." The debate surrounding development of India's nuclear programme revolves around the question of whether it was genuinely a peaceful programme with civilian applications or a clandestine effort to develop nuclear weapons. India's nuclear programme involved a pattern of exploiting civilian cooperation to build military capacity. The deception lies in how India used international support for peaceful purposes, while developing and later openly declaring nuclear weapons, without being held fully accountable like other NPT-defying nations. India began its nuclear programme in the 1940s and 1950s with so-called declared peaceful intentions. Homi Bhaba, famous Indian physicist, led the foundation of the Indian nuclear programme. Initially, the country gained international cooperation from Canada and the US under the promise that the nuclear material and technology would not be used for weapon purposes. However, India viciously diverted plutonium from a reactor supplied by Canada for 'Smiling Buddha' tests. Indian scientist Raja Ramanna, who led these so-called PNEs, lately confirmed this assertion in 1997: "The Pokhran test was a bomb, I can tell you now An explosion is an explosion and a gun is a gun, whether you shoot at someone or shoot at the ground I just want to make clear that the test was not all that peaceful." In 1968, US National Security Archives also recorded that, while visiting Trombay's Canada-India Reactor, Canadian inspectors were unnerved by data suggesting that India was heading towards developing a nuclear device. This declassified US State Department telegram revealed that Canadian nuclear experts told US diplomats about reactor fuel which had been irradiated at a low enough level to produce weapons grade plutonium. According to them, if India wanted, it could produce up to 12 kilogram of plutonium a year. Another set of US-declassified documents revealed that long before India detonated a nuclear device in May 1974, the US Intelligence Community was monitoring and analysing Indian civilian and military nuclear energy activities. US State Department official George McGhee indicated to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that people throughout the State Department seriously contemplated helping India to acquire a nuclear explosive. It was proposed that "it would be desirable if a friendly Asian power beat Communist China to the punch" by detonating a nuclear device first. Another CIA intelligence report observed in 1964 that India had all of the elements necessary to produce a nuclear weapon and it had a capability to assemble a bomb quickly. India did not plan to complete the work on a bomb initially because Indian government was convinced that the Chinese would not have an offensive capability for at least five years. India was relying on President Johnson's assurances for aid in the face of any threat by China. While mentioning Indian role towards nuclear non-proliferation regime, former Indian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva Amandeep Gill added that India was championing the debate on asserting worldwide moratorium on nuclear testing. However, the world witnessed that the country later backed off from signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as it tested its nuclear weapon device in May 1998. Furthermore, after the Indian PNE in 1974, a nuclear suppliers group named the London Suppliers Group (now the Nuclear Suppliers Group or NSG) was established to strengthen nuclear exports and safeguards which met for their first meeting in Nov 1974. Yet the NSG, at the behest of the Bush Administration, agreed in Sept 2008 to exempt India from some of its export guidelines. Ironically, the world remains ignorant of this fact that the very same NSG which was formed in response to 1974's nuclear tests granted a "clean waiver" to India. Since then, India has concluded numerous nuclear cooperation agreements with foreign states. An alarming situation is that these civil nuclear deals are helping India to freely build up its domestic uranium reserves for weapon grade nuclear material. Many studies acclaimed the fact that India operates world's fastest growing nuclear programme. For instance, a Harvard University study suggested that India has the capacity to produce 2261-2686 nuclear weapons. According to another study, India has sufficient material and technical capacity to produce between 356 and 492 nuclear weapons. A study published by Bulletin of Atomic Scientist estimated that India has the capacity to produce many more nuclear weapons than commonly thought: 1,044 nuclear weapons (914 plutonium-based and 130 uranium-based nuclear weapons), obtained from different reactors. Therefore, its unsafeguarded nuclear material and spent fuel pose serious regional and global concerns for proliferation. In addition, nuclear modernisation of India further makes it obvious that New Delhi is expanding its hegemonic designs beyond this region. India is in a process of increasing its ICBMs missile ranges including Agni V (5000km plus) and Agni VI (10,000km-12,000km). This indicates the country can potentially target US territory too. Similarly, India's entry into Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is also providing an edge to India for extending its missile ranges and accessibility towards dual-use military technologies. It is certain that New Delhi's membership to the group disturbs the balance of power in the region as India is modernising its missile and space programme. As a result, contrary to ground realities, the US and other foreign states have turned a blind eye towards India. Washington is preparing India as a so-called 'net security provider' in Indian-Ocean Region - as a counterweight to China. For this, the last 10 years of Indo-US defense cooperation has been strengthening Indian military muscle and directly causing regional security implications. All in all, Indian brinkmanship to the South Asian region offers dangerous security implications. India's regional dominance is evident in its stance on military modernisation and strategic expansion. Post-Pahalgam incidents reveal that extra-regional forces have also played a crucial role in regional dynamics of South Asia. The BJP-led Hindutva leadership still remains vulnerable to potential nuclear risks in the region. Hence, a dialogue on regional peace and security in South Asia and resolution of the Kashmir dispute should be a priority for international community. Mahvish Malik The writer is a Visiting Senior Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad
