Donald Trump Unjustified and unreasonable" targeting of India after false claim that He Stopped War Between India and Pakistan and India is supporting
What I Think (Opinion) - According to the media reports, Donald Trump did make reference to the Indian economy as dead. The reports indicate that he made the comment on social media and referenced India, its tariffs, and its role in trade with Russia.
However, the data presented by reputable economic organizations does not support that conclusion. Let's examine the current economic status of India.
Growth Projections -
World-renowned organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and financial service organizations such as Deloitte and Morgan Stanley all predict that India will be the fastest growing major economy in the world for fiscal years 2025 and 2026.
GDP and Rankings -
India's economy has gone from ranking in the top-five economies to fifth in the world.
Government of India's Response -
Officials of the Indian government have publicly defended the statement. Full credit to the government, they emphasized the strong economic fundamentals in the country, the consistent growth in its economy, and that the economy has gone from being one of the "Frail Five" economies to one of the bright spots in the world.
but there are also points he made -
Claim 1: He Stopped the War Between India and Pakistan -
He has made the claim before that he intervened to avert war between India and Pakistan. He stated he leveraged trade deals to induce both sides to de-escalate at that moment in time. However, this claim has been consistently and vehemently rejected by India, and it affects his ego.
Claim 2: “India is a Dead Economy”? Then Why Tax a Corpse? -
If India were truly a dead economy, then why impose a 25% tariff? That’s like taxing a corpse — illogical and opportunistic. You don’t extract revenue from something that’s lifeless. This contradiction reflects poorly on the strategic consistency of the United States.
Claim 3: India is supporting Russia's War Machine -
The US has also called out India on purchases of Russian crude oil as justification for the tariffs. The US administration assesses that these purchases help fund Russia's military, while also accusing India of profiting from some of that oil sold into the market too.
India's Stance -
India has continuously bristled at the criticism of its trading relationship with Russia, pointing out that many other nations, including the US, and EU member countries also have trading relationships with Russia.
India submits that it is acting in its own national best interests to secure affordable energy for a very large population, especially after regular suppliers diverted their exports to Europe when the conflict began.
"Unjustified and unreasonable" targeting of India -
As I read in media reports -
- While the EU has dramatically reduced its imports of Russian oil and gas, it has not stopped imports completely.
- Some countries still consume Russian energy and even some of the Russian oil that India buys is refined and eventually re-exported to Europe.
- The EU continues to import certain non-sanctioned goods from Russia, such as fertilizers, iron and steel, and some chemicals. Russia is a significant supplier of fertilizers to the EU
- The US continues to import a variety of vital materials from Russia such as uranium for its nuclear sector, palladium for the electric vehicle sector, and some fertilizers and chemicals.
- Although the volume of trade is much lower than pre-2022, and India's imports of these goods is much lower than the overall volume of trade quoted by India, that these imports are still continuing has been pointed out by India as an example of "double standards".
S Now, what I think - These repeated claims, which have been denied by Indian authorities, reveals a stark difference in perspective and strategy between the two countries which constitutes a complex issue for the future of the India-US relationship, wherein public statements can frequently be contradictory to the underlying diplomatic reality.
In the end, it seems more like a clash of personal egos than a real economic issue or this appears to be driven more by personal ego than by facts or diplomacy.
COMMENTS