Alaska Summit: Putin Gets the Better of Trump

The Alaska Summit between President Trump and President Putin has been the major talking point for various reasons. An invitation to President Putin for direct talks ended the Western isolation that began with Moscow’s special military operation in Ukraine. More than three years into the war, which Trump has proclaimed “should have never happened”, has turned into an acid test for the much-trumpeted negotiation skills of the US president who got re-elected on the promise of ending the war ‘within 24 hours’.

Close to eight months into his inauguration, Trump failed to make a headway in the Ukrainian peace process. Worse still, barking at the wrong tree, Trump not only impaired the trade ties with India, Treasury Secretary threatened New Delhi with secondary sanctions if “things don’t go well” during talks between Putin and Trump. Hours before the scheduled summit between the two Presidents, European leaders in a virtual meeting urged the US not to strike a unilateral Ukrainian deal.

Soon, the leaders of the Coalition of the Willing also held talks with the US Vice-President JD Vance, where President Zelenskyy put forth five key ‘common principles’ to guide the negotiations. These are -nothing related to Ukraine should be discussed without Ukraine; there should be US, Russia and Ukraine trilateral; a precondition for Russian ceasefire for the peace talks to begin in all earnest; fourth, Ukraine should receive security guarantees and Moscow can’t veto Ukraine’s EU or NATO prospects and finally, Russia should face fresh sanctions if Putin refuses to ceasefire. Sufficiently briefed by the European leaders, Trump, who bluntly hinted at ‘land swapping’ initially, reprimanded Putin of “very severe consequences” in the run-up to the summit.

Trump announced a summit with Putin after his deadline for sanctions on Russia’s touted “shadow fleet” had expired on August 8^th, without facing any consequences.  With a reputation of bombastic threats culminating in a “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out) and episodic blusters ending in a blooper, it was hardly any surprise when Trump remarked, “it’s not a deal until done”. Trump’s call for direct talks with Putin underscores his strategic weakness as Moscow remained unflinching in the face of sanctions designed to cripple its oil trade and finances. Nor does the penalty on countries trading with Russia work in his favour. PM Modi rebuffed his threats and strongly resisted US attempts to gain access to the Indian agriculture and dairy sectors.

The Ukraine war is becoming unsustainable to the US, and in the backdrop of Russia’s continued advances into Eastern Ukraine, it is turning into a major setback for the West. As per the Institute for the Study of War, Russia has gained 2350 sq. kilometres since December 2024. Frustrated by Russian escalations and the lack of progress towards a ceasefire, Trump shortened the 50-day deadline on July 28.

Later, in response to Russia’s former President Dimitri Medvedev’s perceived “inflammatory remarks” on August 1, Trump ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines closer to Russia. On August 4^th, far from being ruffled, Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which it unilaterally upheld after the US suspended its participation in 2019.  The announcement, coinciding with the anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, cautioned of an impending “nuclear reality” replete with burgeoning nuclear risks. Trump’s lame negotiation tactics, online barbs and ultimatums have miserably failed to bring Putin to the table.

Trump’s trail of desperation became more evident as he warmly greeted Putin on the tarmac with a B-2 bomber escorted by four F-35s flying overhead and F-22s lined along the runway. The staged display of American might was responded to in full measure by Russia, by bombing Ukraine around the same time. Trump’s show of power revealed America’s insecurities and growing anxiety. 

After three hours of closed-door one-on-one talks, while Putin triumphantly walked away saying, “Next time in Moscow”, like a burdened general, Trump admitted, “We didn’t get there”. A seasoned intelligence veteran, Putin has assessed the weakness of Trump’s pompous vanity and ceded not an inch. In fact, a direct conversation with Trump has ended Russia’s diplomatic isolation and put him on an equal footing with the European leaders. Excluded from the talks, the direct stakeholders of the region’s security, Ukraine and European leaders, together with Trump’s act of rehabilitating Putin, widened transatlantic rifts.

Unquestionably hailed as “peacemaker” by minions under diplomatic duress, the summit punctured Trump’s tall claims of master dealmaker.  Trump’s ultimatums and sanction threats have, till now, failed to make peace; on the contrary, it exposed his bullying tactics. Across the board, bullies are deemed cowards. Chinese resistance to Trump’s sanctions, Putin’s defiance towards peace negotiations on US terms and India’s stark rejection of mediation claims during Operation Sindoor have underscored the futility of tariff/sanction threats.

Putin is certainly in no hurry to clinch a ceasefire agreement. While admitting that the “conversation was very frank, substantive, and, in my opinion, brings us closer to the necessary decisions. We had the opportunity, which we did, to talk about the genesis, about the causes of this crisis”, and reiterated, “It is the elimination of these root causes that should be the basis for settlement”. Ukraine is an “existential war” for Putin and “non-negotiable” for Russia. Embarking for Alaska, Trump stated that his main goal is a ceasefire, a stance echoed by Ukraine, “Our vision is a ceasefire first, and then everything else”.

However, shortly after meeting Putin, Trump wrote on social media, “It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.” Eyeing a long-term durable plan, Putin is steadfast about Russia’s security interests. Intractable in his approach, Putin has vowed to protect the interests of the Russian-speaking people in the occupied regions.

For long, Russia has been firm on steps for a durable peace and strongly opposed to Ukraine’s association with the EU and NATO. Putin expressed concerns about the swift militarisation of Europe and its plans to deploy peacekeepers on the ground.  This runs contrary to Trump’s short-term, Nobel Peace Prize-winning plan of huddling the stakeholders into a quick agreement. Right now, Putin is testing the waters. His first priority on the list is to negotiate the lifting of the stringent sanctions regime on Russia. Putin is here for the long haul. His calibrated, clinical plan would test the diplomatic patience of Trump.  

Humiliated, disrespected, and isolated globally, Putin has quietly endured everything from being labelled as a ‘war criminal to being accorded a red-carpet welcome on US soil’. The Alaska Summit is a turnaround of sorts for Putin, who has weathered numerous economic and geopolitical storms. Leading Russia through the thick and thin for over 25 years, Putin has mastered the craft of diplomacy, which is reduced to a social-media bluster by Trump.

For Trump, Ukraine is a “photo-opportunity move”, while the security calculus of Russia hinges on resolving the issue. Peace is not a breakthrough for Putin but inevitable for Russian sovereignty. Russia made the cardinal mistake of buying James Baker’s promise to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t move “one inch to the east”. This time around, Russia would want the origins of the conflict hammered out for eternity. Peace remains elusive until the moot point is addressed. 

The Alaska Summit is just the beginning..

@ Copyrights reserved.

India-Philippines Strategic Partnership: A Subtle Strategic Signal to China

Post-Galwan conflict, there has been a subtle but noticeable shift in India’s approach towards disputes in the SCS. In a marked departure from its balanced approach for the risk of irking China, for the first time at the 15^th EAS Summit, EAM Jaishankar remarked, “actions and incidents in the South China Sea erode trust and the ongoing negotiations on the proposed code of conduct should not be prejudicial to legitimate interests of third parties and should be fully consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)”.

Alongside playing a proactive role, since 2020, India has increased maritime deployments in the SCS to strengthen military-diplomatic ties and enhance interoperability and cooperation with ASEAN nations. At the same time, India consciously stayed away from joint patrols or Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) with the US Navy. India’s approach to the South China Sea has been guided by the Act East Policy and the Indo-Pacific vision to secure a safe regional architecture where nations can resolve disputes peacefully.

With high regard for ASEAN centrality, India has always believed that South East Asia can act as a ‘fulcrum’ connecting India and the Pacific Ocean. As expert Abhijit Singh of ORF observed, “A tendency to view the region through a prism of geopolitics and ‘balance of power' makes Indian decision makers wary of taking a stand on China’s aggressive posturing. Yet the costs of saying and doing nothing are rising for India as China’s firming grip over disputed territories in the South China Sea portends greater power projection in the Eastern Indian Ocean.” Instructively, the Chinese standoff along the LAC and increased naval presence in the IOR and Beijing’s military escalation in the West Philippines Sea brought India and the Philippines together.

Beijing’s aggressive expansionism in the SCS has made it the stormiest region in the Indo-Pacific theatre. With shared maritime concerns and Chinese aggression as the cornerstone of bilateral convergence, on PM Modi’s first state visit to the Philippines in 2017, the countries signed an MoU on defence cooperation and logistics. In 2019, countries signed an MoU on the sharing of white shipping information, and the Indian Navy joined the naval exercises with the US, Japan and Philippines for the first time in the SCS.

As Prof. Harsh Pant alludes, “the strengthening of maritime security ties between the two countries represents the highly interdependent security dynamics of the Indian Ocean and the greater South China Sea”. Close coordination between India and the Philippines is rooted in China’s “two-oceans strategy”, which aims to project greater power over Indo-Pacific. Beijing’s deepening military and economic engagements in IOR, its disruptive illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) in the Western Ocean Region, along with provocations close to the Western Philippines Sea, are pertinent offshoots of the same doctrine.

Apprised of Chinese adventurism and its threat to the regional security architecture, India and the Filipino Coast Guard signed an MoU on defence coordination in 2023 to intensify defence cooperation. The countries elevated the Joint Defence Cooperation Committee (JDCC) meeting to the Defence Secretary level in September 2024.

The Philippines is a country of about 7,600 islands. To effectively address China’s expansionism, Manila has unveiled the defence strategy- Comprehensive Archipelagic Defence Concept (CADC), which was operationalised in March 2024. In November, President Marcos signed the Maritime Zones Law and Archipelagic Sea Lanes Law to strengthen the government’s resolve to uphold rules-based order. A vital component of CADC is to strengthen maritime security ties with like-minded countries. Besides firming up ties with traditional partners like the US, Japan, Australia, the UK and Canada to maximise maritime security partnership with India, Manila held the first track 1 bilateral maritime dialogue in December 2024.

Catalysing the defence cooperation, which has become the most important pillar of the bilateral partnership, Filipino President Ferdinand R Marcos Jr arrived in New Delhi on August 4^th, for a five-day state visit at the invitation of PM Modi. Coinciding with his visit, navies of both countries held their first joint drill off the Philippines' Coast. Three Indian Navy vessels- INS Delhi, INS Shakti, and INS Kiltan, joined by Philippine frigates BRP Miguel Malvar and BRP Jose Rizal, conducted a two-day joint passage in the South China Sea, underscoring the growing bilateral maritime security cooperation.

The visit, the first ever by President Marcos Jr, marks 75 years of the establishment of diplomatic relations. Besides, the contemporary convergence of shared concerns, the bilateral relationship is rooted in mutual trust, respect, civilisational contacts, deep cultural bonds and shared democratic values anchored in the 1952 Treaty of Friendship. Accompanied by a delegation comprising cabinet ministers and businessmen, both leaders held delegation-level and restricted talks to review bilateral ties. Elevating the ties to a “Strategic Partnership”, leaders adopted a Plan of Action (2025-2029) to impart greater dynamism to the partnership. India is now the fifth strategic partner of the Philippines.

Hailing the partnership, PM Modi remarked, “India and the Philippines are friends by choice and partners by destiny. From the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, we are united by shared values. Ours is not just a friendship of the past, it is a promise to the future”. The bilateral ties received a massive boost with the delivery of the initial batch of BrahMos batteries to the Philippines in April 2024, positioning India as a credible defence partner. This has laid the foundation for the institutionalisation of bilateral defence mechanisms.

Keen on modernising the Philippines Armed Forces, President Marcos confirmed interest in procuring additional BrahMos missiles and other military equipment from India, a reflection of a growing regard for India's defence prowess post Operation Sindoor.

Furthering the cooperation under the MAHASAGAR (Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions) vision, countries have decided to collaborate and cooperate in co-development, co-production of defence products to achieve self-reliance, establish a defence R&D and supply chain ecosystem. To this end, countries signed Terms of Reference to foster tri-services staff talks and for enhanced maritime cooperation between the Indian Coast Guard and the Philippine Coast Guard. Leaders have explored opportunities for cooperation in developing submarine infrastructure, ship design and naval modernisation.

Condemning the Pahalgam attack, the Philippines expressed interest in jointly working on counterterrorism, human trafficking, money laundering, and cyberthreats. Sides have signed a treaty on mutual legal assistance and a treaty on transfer of sentenced persons between the two countries.

Injecting a strategic dimension to the Plan of Action, countries sought to develop cooperation in political, defence, maritime security, trade and investment, science and technology, connectivity, people-to-people movement, and cultural exchanges. Indian investments in the Philippines, both direct and through third countries, stand at $5 billion. To unlock economic opportunities and expand investment and bilateral trade of $3.3 billion, leaders adopted the ToR for negotiations on the Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA).

The Philippines is currently serving as India’s Country Coordinator in ASEAN (2024-27) and is going to assume the Chairmanship of ASEAN next year. This coincides with India’s BRICS Chairmanship, creating multilateral cooperation opportunities. Extending India’s full support, PM Modi called for expediting the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA). Endorsing India’s status as top exporter of pharmaceuticals to the Philippines, countries agreed to enhance collaboration in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, ayurveda and traditional medicine.

Being a huge importer of oil, the Philippines intends to collaborate with India in biofuels, renewables, green hydrogen and oil exploration. Manila has also invited Indian investments in developing upstream oil and gas assets and infrastructure development- Roads, Rail and Air. In response to visa-free privileges for Indian tourists by the Philippines, India extended a gratis e-tourist visa for Filipino nationals for a year.

Philippines Unique Identifier System-PhilSys uses the MOSIP platform incubated at IIIT Bengaluru. Firmed up this collaboration, countries signed an MoU on cooperation in digital technologies. Alongside, countries signed the Programme of Cooperation for 2025-28 on tourism and a Statement of Intent on cooperation on peaceful uses of outer space. India invited the Philippines to join the India Information Fusion Centre for Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR) and extended support to the Philippines in setting up Sovereign Data Cloud Infrastructure.

Enhancing cooperation between the ASEAN Outlook for Indo-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative for Peace (IPOI), countries reaffirmed their commitment towards upholding peace, stability and prosperity in the region. India, which considers SCS as part of the global commons, supports freedom of navigation, overflight in the region and expressed concern over coercive and aggressive actions in the region. New Delhi conveyed that the 2016 Arbitral Award, which is in tune with the obligations under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), should be the basis for peacefully resolving disputes.  

President Marcos thanked India for permitting non-basmati rice exports to the Philippines when the country struggled with poor crop output and acknowledged India’s role as the first responder in any Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operation. India offered to share the Gati Shakti Platform, and PM Modi talked about the Jan Aushadi system for low-cost distribution of generic medicines. PM Modi fondly recalled agritechnology cooperation between the two countries and the development of the hypoglycemic rice variety at the IRRI South Asia Regional Centre (ISARC), Varanasi, with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines.

Though the Philippines has a critical security alliance agreement with the US, considering Washington’s uncertain policies, Manila is preparing to act independently and diversifying its engagements for long-term security. Prioritising self-reliance, Marcos Jr, who has firmly resisted China’s military posturing, is keen on expanding and enhancing ties with India.

India’s warm embrace of the Philippines, an unmissable strategic message to Beijing, is a shot in the arm for India’s Act East Policy and Indo-Pacific vision for regional security amid shifting alliances and unpredictable global politics.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Trump Tariffs Reignite Concerns of American Dependability

Geopolitics and global economics are deeply intertwined. A perceived assault on one segment is bound to have a ripple effect on the other. Trump announced 25% tariffs plus a penalty on India a day before the putative deadline.  Some analysts saw this coming.

Sanctions and threats have been an integral part of Trump’s coercive diplomacy. In his first tenure, President Trump signed the CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) into law in 2017 and threatened India with dire consequences if India goes ahead with the purchase of Russia’s S-400 Triumf air defence system. Despite the sanctions threat, India went ahead with the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the procurement of S-400, signed in 2016. India managed to obtain a limited waiver in 2018.

In 2018, after unilaterally pulling out of the JCPOA, Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran and warned countries against having business ties with Tehran. Under mounting pressure, India halted oil imports from Iran in May 2019 - its second-largest crude supplier. Just two months earlier, India was forced to stop its oil supplies from Venezuela due to similar US sanctions, its third-largest oil supplier.

India thus grappled with Trump’s tertiary sanctions alongside punitive tariffs on steel, aluminium and washing machines. In a further blow, Trump 1.0 even revoked the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) for India in June 2019, with reinstatement still pending. Notably, an economic study of Trump’s first term showed that tariffs hurt the imposing country more than its targets, with prices of intermediate products rising by 10% to 30%¹.

Back in his second term, Trump defiantly pursued tariffs as a panacea for the US’s mounting debt with a familiar refrain that “they (countries) are ripping us off”.  His Liberation Day tariff announcement shocked global markets into disarray. Unclear of the final rates while importers absorbed the initial shocks, which soon rippled through economic indicators.

A study by Yale Budget Lab noted a 1.8% increase in US consumer prices, with inflation peaking in the month of June. The concomitant burden is pegged to an average equivalent of $2400 per US household². Besides financial strain, what has triggered uncertainty is the phenomenon dubbed by critics as TACO -Trump Always Chickens Out. Characterised by deadline extensions and unpredictable tariff rollbacks, the erratic trade policy- strategically spun as ‘negotiation’- has bolstered the world's view of tariffs as tools of Trump’s coercive diplomacy.

Hit by an average of 15% US tariffs, the steepest since the 1930s, the global economy is expected to shrink by 3% as per the International Trade Centre (ITC). While the geostrategic relationship remained relatively insulated from the economic warfare in Trump 1.0, arbitrary trade levies in Trump 2.0, laced with hostility, might have a long-lasting effect on America’s strategic relationship with countries.

In a frenzied bid to dodge impending US tariffs before the Aug 1 deadline, countries like Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and the EU offered broader access for US products to their markets along with sizeable investments. Doing away with its threshold limits on rice imports, a notable red line in trade, Japan went out of its way to placate Trump, promising $550 billion investment. The EU offered to invest $600 billion in the US and purchase $750 billion worth of energy products. Similarly, South Korea agreed to invest $300 billion in the US for 15% reciprocal tariffs. Buoyed by the favourable deals, Trump announced a 25% tariff plus a penalty on India.

PM Modi was among the first leaders hosted by Trump 2.0 when both leaders ambitiously set a bilateral trade target of $500 billion by 2030 and promptly initiated trade negotiations. Playing his hand at different strategic fronts, Trump positioned himself as a peacemaker in the India-Pakistan conflict during Operation Sindoor. This intervention ran contrary to India’s hardline policy stance of ‘no third-party involvement in bilateral matters’. Trump’s untenable claims stirred bitter political dissensions in India, forcing the ruling dispensation to issue numerous clarifications on a cross-border operation that inflicted a mortal blow on Pakistan’s military and strategic apparatus.

Trump’s volte face on Pakistan is quite a story. In 2018, Trump remarked, “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”. Fast forward, and Trump’s hosting lunch for Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir has caught India by surprise. Recalibrating Pakistan-US ties, Munir reportedly offered the US access to mineral wealth in Balochistan. Doubling down on charm offensive, Pakistan has invested in the Trump family’s cryptocurrency firm, World Liberty Financial, towards the end of April. Indeed, pandering to Trump’s ego, Pakistan has also nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump’s claim to end hostilities has worked to Munir’s advantage, forcing the Pakistan government to elevate him to the Field Marshal position despite suffering a humiliating blow in Operation Sindoor. While India-US trade negotiations continued at a halting pace, India’s disapproval of Trump’s mediation had its impact, with the US President telling Apple to halt iPhone manufacturing in India. In July, he warned nations backing BRICS with a 10% extra tariff for their attempts to weaken the dollar.

Negotiating the Ukraine peace talks- a cornerstone of his poll campaign that remains unfulfilled is taking the best of him. Frustrated by stalled negotiations with Russia, wielding economic firepower, Trump warned of a staggering 100% tariffs on countries importing Russian oil, targeting China, India and Brazil.

Trump’s barrage of Truth Social posts leaves no ambiguity about his intention to unleash a full-scale ‘economic warfare’. His tirades can be zeroed into three provocative themes- first, a scathing attack on what he calls, “most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers”; second a brewing discomfort over India’s defence and energy purchases from Russia- “India has brought cast majority of equipment from Russia and are Russia’s largest buyer of energy along with China” and a veiled economic threat suggesting “they (India and Russia) can take down their economies together”.

Finally, in a move to upstage Modi and put the two South Asian neighbours on an equal footing, he announced a new US-Pakistan partnership: “We have just concluded a Deal with the country of Pakistan whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive Reserves. We are in the process of choosing an oil company that will lead this partnership. Who knows, maybe they’ll be selling Oil to India”.

Obviously, the “non-monetary trade barriers” are an apparent reference to India’s firm stance on protecting its agriculture sector, denying the entry of GM crops. Dairy has been another flash point as the classification of US dairy falls under “non-vegetarian milk”. The US termed this labelling as ‘unjustified non-trade barrier’. However, milk has religious, spiritual and cultural significance, and hence permitting US dairy products is unacceptable for India. US agricultural products can potentially disrupt India’s MSME sector involved in exports. Close to 50% of India's population depends on agriculture for their livelihood, and India has vowed to protect the interests of farmers.

Trump's repeated claims of leveraging trade deals to mediate India-Pakistan tensions revealed a disturbing pattern of coercive diplomacy and weaponisation of tariffs. In doing so, Trump has overstepped on India’s red lines – India brooks no external interference in its domestic affairs. By pitching Pakistan against India and attempting to hyphenate both, Trump earned India’s ire. Trump’s pivot to Pakistan in South Asia will have a telling impact on the US Indo-Pacific framework. Trump’s public rebuke of India’s oil imports and defence purchases from Russia has been an open assault on its strategic autonomy.

By attempting to trample on the twin non-negotiables- securing national interests and strategic autonomy- Trump has attempted to provoke India. His derogatory description of India as a “dead economy” and “we have done very little business with India” reeked of arrogance and a high-handed approach to pressurise India.

Trump’s announcement comes a day ahead of the landmark India-US collaboration on the NISAR Mission. Lest we forget, India’s rapid strides in space research are a poignant reminder of the US roadblocks which seriously derailed the satellite programme. Refusing to transfer technology, the US objected to India’s deal with Russia for the transfer of cryogenic engines and tech transfer, citing Missile Technology Control Transfer (MTCR) violations and imposed sanctions.

Simultaneously, the US crippled India’s indigenous efforts by implicating the project head, Nambi Narayan, in a false espionage case. India and the US relationship is also etched by a period of Comprehensive sanctions under the Glenn Amendment imposed by the US President post-1998, India’s Pokhran nuclear testing. However, the relationship improved after 9/11 when Washington realised the strategic convergence with India in the national security domain.

China’s emerging economic superpower rise heralded a new dawn in India-US relations. In the past 25 years, countries have diligently nurtured the partnership by expanding the arenas of cooperation. The US sees great relevance in India as a counterbalance amid China’s assertive and aggressive rise and as an indispensable partner in the Indo-Pacific region. Unfortunately, Trump’s blunt political message devoid of political nuance demonstrated a raw geopolitical muscle akin to a bully, reigniting fears of the reliability of the US partnership.

The reckless abandon and projection of power, smacking of transactionalism, will force India to not only diversify its trade and supply chains but also review its reliance on the US. Also, Trump’s cosying up to China is not lost on India. While India was forced to stop energy imports from Iran and Venezuela, China continues to buy 90% of Iranian oil. Beijing is also the largest buyer of oil from Venezuela and imports Russian crude. In June, taking to Truth Social, Trump stated, “China can now continue to purchase oil from Iran”. Trump’s posturing of China as a dove for rare earths exposes inherent contradictions in the US-China policy.

Trump’s unpredictability, coupled with bluster and blackmail, will raise more questions about America’s credibility as a mature power. On the other hand, India's resistance to US pressure will make countries begrudgingly respect Indian leadership. Unlike modern nation-states, a resilient civilisational state like India has renewed ‘Swadeshi’ push, urging citizens to embrace indigenous goods.

U.S. sanctions are expected to significantly affect India's exports of gems and jewellery, seafood, textiles, and auto components. However, India can cushion the blow through a strategic mix of domestic reforms and proactive global engagement—much like it did in the aftermath of the more severe post-Pokhran sanctions, which ultimately spurred the country’s pursuit toward self-reliance.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India’s Strategic Trade Diversification Gains Fresh Momentum with CETA

Amid the inordinate delays in trade negotiations with the US and the Damocles Sword of Trump tariffs, India has sealed an FTA with the UK. PM Modi, on his fourth visit to the UK, was hosted by his UK counterpart Kier Starmer at his official Country residence, Chequers, for the FTA signing ceremony on July 24, 2025. Leaders formally announced the successful conclusion of the India-UK FTA on May 6^th after three years of negotiations.

The FTA was indeed the cornerstone of the collaborative 2030 India-UK Roadmap laid down by PM Modi and former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. As a part of the Enhanced Trade Partnership, countries began the first round of FTA negotiations, virtually in January 2022. The next 15 rounds of talks were held alternatively in Delhi and London.

Beset by contentious issues like mobility visas, carbon tax exemptions and duty cuts on alcohol and electric vehicles and elections in both countries, the talks dragged for over three years. Notwithstanding several leadership changes, post-Brexit, the UK, keen on reviving its stagnant economy, has keenly pursued the talks. With Conservatives at the helm, mobility remained the major roadblock. Expressing willingness for early conclusion of FTA, Labour leader, PM Starmer relaunched the talks in January 2025. Reaching consensus over the thorniest issues, countries finally reached consensus in May.

Traditionally labelled as a laggard in terms of economic diplomacy, New Delhi’s readiness towards FTAs has been rather tepid. Moreso, the ill-conceived and poorly negotiated FTAs clinched pre-2014 turned out to be lopsided. Except for SAPTA (SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement), the trade imbalances with South Korea, Japan and ASEAN have been steadily increasing. Wary of burgeoning trade deficits, India walked away from China-dominated RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) in 2019.  

Driven by geopolitical conditions, to spur economic growth and access new markets, India intensified economic partnership with like-minded countries. Post-2022, India sealed new FTAs with Mauritius, Australia and the UAE.  In March 2024, India entered into a Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) with EFTA (European Free Trade Association), a group of four non-EU countries- Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Norway. Coming into force from October, the agreement will entail $100 billion in investment in the next 15 years, creating 10 lakh jobs in India.

To ensure equitable and balanced trade, India is seeking to review FTAs with South Korea, Japan and ASEAN. Alongside, to diversify trade and boost economic growth, India has strategically revived FTA negotiations with developed countries to boost investor confidence and remove uncertainty in trade policies.

India’s FTA with the UK, the CETA, Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, is a huge milestone in that direction. CETA will provide duty-free access for 99% of Indian exports and covers the entire trade basket, creating numerous opportunities for Indian textiles, marine products, leather, footwear, gems & jewellery, toys and small businesses. Access to new markets can accelerate exports and generate millions of jobs in India.

The service sector, the major growth engine of the Indian economy, would also accrue wide-ranging benefits under Contractual Service Suppliers (CSS) of CETA for IT and IT-enabled services and other 36 sectors, providing vast avenues for growth. Simplified visa procedures and liberalised entry categories are expected to increase the mobility of skilled talent in 16 Independent Professional (IPs) categories, such as Research and Development, Chef, artists, yoga instructors, to the UK.

CETA is expected to double the bilateral trade of $56 billion by 2030. India is the 11^th largest trade partner of the UK. Along with CETA, India has also sealed the Double Contribution Convention, exempting Indian workers in the UK and their employers from social security contributions for three years. This would boost earnings and remittances. The UK is currently the largest source of remittances for India after the US and UAE. 

A 50% duty reduction on 97% of UK exports, mainly alcohol products, medical devices and advanced machinery can increase its accessibility to the large Indian markets. Reeling under economic stagnation post-Brexit, CETA with India will accelerate industrial growth and revive the sixth-largest economy.

With 27 Chapters covering trade and services, labour mobility, including social and developmental issues, the India-UK FTA can serve as the benchmark for India’s future trade negotiations. As per GTRI, India is expected to forego revenue $ 542 million in the first year due to tariff reductions on a wide range of UK imports. Notwithstanding this loss of customs revenue, India went ahead with the FTA, reflecting a massive shift in the trade policy, which is more rational, intended to make Indian industries competitive in the long run. Further, the phased tariff reductions on automobiles should serve as a huge message to President Trump, who has unceremoniously picked on India for the tariffs on high-end luxury bikes.

The FTA, while preserving Indian autonomy, has balanced its commitment to the global norms as set the stage for expediting the long-pending FTA with the EU. Another important key feature of this FTA is a dedicated chapter for gender, which explicitly endorses the critical role of women in economic development. Besides strengthening investment and trade linkages, CETA marks the convergence of the UK’s quest for trade diversification and boosts India’s goal of self-reliance through ‘Make in India, for the World’. Securing its trade interests, India has carefully signed the FTA, expected to come into force by next year after the ratification by the respective Parliaments.

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CABM) will come into force in the UK in 2027, and it is not included in the FTA. Alleviating the concerns of the Indian businesses, India has asserted its right to introduce counterbalancing measures to mitigate its impact. However, critical gaps still exist, especially in mobility. Despite Indian efforts, the UK administration is still recalcitrant on its immigration outlook. Similarly, India has restricted access for the UK’s financial and legal services. While the stringent phytosanitary measures of the UK can be an onerous hurdle for Indian farmers.

By and large, India’s landmark FTA with the UK will now serve as a framework for trade agreements with the EU and the US. Trade agreements can help build indigenous manufacturing capabilities to match with the global partners and eventually facilitate integration with the global economy.

CETA has laid the ground for deepening economic partnership with the UK, which is the sixth-largest investor in India with cumulative investments worth $36 billion. India's investments in the UK, valued at $20 billion, generate one lakh jobs. Modi and Starmer also unveiled the India-UK 2035 Vision plan to deepen and diversify bilateral cooperation.

The ambitious Roadmap seeks to nurture education and skills partnership, intellectual partnership, health and life sciences partnership, develop cutting-edge technology and research through the year-old UK-India Technology Security Initiative (TSI) and foster climate partnership to work towards net zero goals.

Leaders have adopted the 10-year defence-industrial roadmap, opening enormous opportunities for collaboration between defence industries. Countries have decided to collaborate on advanced connectivity, cyber resilience, semiconductors, quantum biotechnology and harness the UK-India Research and Innovation Corridor focused on future telecoms, AI and critical minerals.

Replete with geopolitical contestations, challenges and growth opportunities, Indo-Pacific is now a pivotal theatre. Committed to a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific, India can be an indispensable partner for the UK in the region. Steering clear of mistrust, resentment and colonial misgivings, both countries have laid a foundation to build a pragmatic and forward-looking relationship based on shared interests with the trade agreement.

Battling similar threats, leaders condemned terrorism and decided to strengthen bilateral and multilateral cooperation in counter-radicalisation, combat financing of terrorism and take concerted action against terrorist entities and their patrons. As marked disapproval of London mayor Sadiq Khan’s inaction despite repeated requests from Indian authorities of the threat from Khalistanis, PM Modi deliberately avoided London. The security breach during EAM Jaishankar’s London visit is still fresh in Indian memory. The two most important appointments of PM Modi – the signing of FTA and meeting with King Charles III were held away from London.

The UK has become a safe haven for Khalistani terrorism and India’s economic offenders. PM Modi brought these issues to the fore in his press briefing. He remarked, “We are united in our view that there can be no place for double standards in the fight against terrorism. We also agree that forces with extremist ideologies must not be allowed to misuse democratic freedoms. Those who misuse democratic freedoms to undermine democracy itself must be held to account. On the matter of extradition of economic offenders as well, our agencies will continue to work together in close coordination and cooperation”.

At a time when mercurial Trump is raining down tariff threats on India, India deftly sealed a trade agreement with the UK as a strategic message to the US. Trump announced a trade deal with India as early as February and set an ambitious target of $500billion bilateral trade. Six months hence, both countries held five rounds of negotiations, with the sixth round scheduled for August 25^th.

At the time of writing, news just trickled in that Trump has announced 25% tariffs on India plus a penalty. By weaponising trade, Trump has recklessly undermined the India-US Global Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Instructively, factoring in Trump’s transactionalism, India has fast-tracked trade negotiations with various countries. India-UK FTA is thus very timely and augurs well with India’s attempts to buffet the headwinds of Trump’s whimsical trade policies.   

@ Copyrights reserved.

The British Makeover of India: Indigenous Education and Languages Downgraded

India, that is Bharat, has been a land of seekers of knowledge. Learning and pursuit of knowledge have been an integral part of Indian civilisation. Nearly eight decades into independence, India hasn’t yet completely reclaimed its civilisational heritage. Relentless Muslim invasions and British colonisation have struck at the very foundational structures of its civilisation.

In her rigorously researched two-volume series on the impact of the British Colonisation on India’s civilisation, Padma Sri Meenakshi Jain brought to light the systematic destruction of India’s indigenous institutions by the British East India Company (EIC). The first volume, released in 2024, expertly uncovers the colonial dismantling of the native judiciary and its allied institutions, which were rooted in the Dharma Shastras and Sutras. (A review of the first volume- The British Makeover of India: Judicial and Other Indigenous Institutions Upturned can be accessed here).

Structured in four sections, the second volume titled- “The British Makeover of India: Indigenous Education and Languages Downgraded” brings out in sordid detail the steady decline of the indigenous education system. Enduring the double whammy of lack of government support and impoverishment of the natives under colonial rule, the system that thrived for millennia crumbled.

Western travellers and the early EIC officials were in awe of the indigenous education system, mostly ‘single teacher run schools’ that imparted the 3 basic Rs of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. Supported by the communities, the schools erected by teachers and built in clay catered to rudimentary learning. The curriculum enabled the students to become competent in the skills needed for local transactions. Mistakenly described as rote learning, the indigenous system focused on practice and memory as a tool of learning.  The author highlights and traces the functioning of Verdah or Tinnai Schools in Tamil Nadu that survived through the early decades of the 20^th century.

Soon, the colonial government often confronted the traditional and institutionalised learning of these schools, forcing them to shift to the modern (British curriculum). Arguing for Anglicisation or Christianisation, Charles Grant, along with Rev. David Brown and George Udny, drafted a plan, Mission to Bengal, to set up missionary schools headed by clergymen in all eight provinces of Bengal. He insisted “The People are universally and wholly corrupt, they are as depraved as they are blind, and as wretched as they are depraved, and to govern them and render them obedient and orderly upon right principles is no easy Work….. to reconcile them for a foreign dominion like Ours, it seems equally clear that We and they ought to have some strong common principles…… Religion is that Common Principle, the only just and durable one that can be established between us” (p35).

Terming the European arts and science as “superior lights”, Grant proposed that the ‘implantation’ of this British curriculum through the English language would silently disconnect the Hindus from their heritage. Drawing from the earlier Muslim invaders who conducted public affairs and governance in Persian and asserted their superiority, Grant believed that English must be made the language of administration and judicial work. Grant’s plans were the meat of the Company Charter of 1793.

EIC’s plans are renewed every twenty years by the parliament. Seemingly, in the early stages of colonisation, the parliament, taking a cautious approach on sending missionaries to India, didn’t endorse the plan in its entirety. However, Grant, who had the backing of Prime Minister Henry Dundas, using his authority, sent twenty Chaplains to India. Soon, the ‘Sermapore Trio’- William Carey, William Ward and Joshua Marshman, who arrived in Calcutta without valid licences, expanded the evangelisation programme. Anglicist William Wilberforce advocated for the dissemination of Christianity through various Indian languages.

Initially, a section of EIC officials, referred to as Orientalists, endorsed the indigenous education systems and espoused revival of traditional knowledge. They established new institutions in Bengal, Bombay province. Warren Hastings started Calcutta Madrassa in 1781 and Jonathan Duncan founded Sanskrit College in 1781 to increase intellectual contact between Pandits and British officials, surmising the concept of ‘reinvigorate, not replace’. But eventually, missionaries used these institutions to become proficient in vernacular languages. Translating the Bible into local languages, they distributed Christian texts and books to the common people. Soon, the missionaries even turned their focus to different Oriental languages and spread Christianity to South East Asia as well.

With the appointment of William Bentinck as Governor General of India in 1828, the pretence of ‘engrafting European sciences’ on traditional knowledge was shed. He approved the introduction of English to reduce administrative costs, and natives also showed interest to learn the language to earn a livelihood. Eventually, the Company Charter of 1793 fructified in 1835 when Anglicists Charles Trevelyan and Thomas B Macaulay pressed hard for its implementation.

In his speech before the Parliament opposing scholarships and funds to the indigenous institutions Macaulay said, “To have found a great people sunk in the lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would indeed be a title to glory all our own”. Confessing to having no knowledge of Sanskrit or Arabic, Macaulay argued, “who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia… It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sancrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgements used at preparatory schools in England” (p70).

The Macaulay Minute of Feb 2, 1835, which has veered the indigenous education system away from its traditional moorings and produced thousands of brown sahibs, was unhinged about its contempt for natives. Obtrusively citing the end goal, Macaulay indicated, “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern- a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of this country to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population”(p70). Perhaps, given the brazenness of Macaulay’s stance, the Minute was published in 1853. Macaulay didn’t want it to be published.

Apprised of the consequences of this wily Charter, which was approved by the Parliament, in a letter to his father, Macaulay confessed- “No Hindoo, who has received an English education, ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy; but many profess themselves as pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity. It is my firm belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be affected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty; merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect”. (p74). In fact, the growing tribe of influentials HINOs is a direct outcome of the Macaulay education system, which was imposed on the unsuspecting natives.

The Charter Act 1833 opened the floodgates for missionaries so much so that the period between 1830-57 was reckoned as “Age of Mission School”. Offering elementary education in vernacular languages, missionaries successfully penetrated even the rural areas. Given their increasing reach, evangelists argued for grants-in-aid for missionary schools, pressed for introduction of Bible as a class book and called for abolishing Oriental schools and colleges. Alexander Duff, author of educational despatch, described imparting English education without religion, “a blind suicidal” policy.

The EIC, wary of perceived threats to the interests of the Empire in the wake of the Vellore Mutiny, Tinnevelley riots and Nagpur riots, halted direct financial assistance to missionaries and tried to rein on the religious bigotry of missionaries. However, the missionaries soon ventured into secondary education. Simultaneously, the colonial government began tweaking the indigenous curriculum in colleges by removing key Sanskrit texts and adding the Western classics in arts and literature.

Post-1857 revolt, the government totally abandoned the policy of religious neutrality and imposed Christianity. Postulating, keeping people away from Christianity caused the 1857 Mutiny, Herbert Edwardes said, “between us and the Indian people, the great want is the want of a link. We are divided by our religions. There is no amalgamation between the races. There is nothing to twine one within the other and cement our interests. We stand aloof- and find nothing in our worldly policy to bridge the space. We shall only find that link in Christianity. If we Christianise one man, we have made one friend. If we Christianise a race, we have got an army. If we Christianise a province, we have founded a government. If we Christianise a people, we have made an empire…”. (p253).

In addition to Christianisation, rampant exploitation rendered the prosperous Indian society impoverished. Dire economic straits resulted in teachers' reluctance to barter knowledge. Further, the mandatory fees for enrolment into schools denied the masses basic access to elementary education. Once a thriving society of knowledge and education, the education system of India collapsed due to a lack of patronage from the government and the dire poverty of people.

The last section of the book examines the colonial times when Hindus and Muslims asserted civilisation identity through language. Stripping Hindavi, an amalgamation of Sanskrit and Persian languages of the Sanskrit heritage, elite Muslims during the decline of the Mughal Empire developed Urdu. Refurbishing Hindavi with Persian heritage, Muslims flaunted a separate identity. Urdu created fundamental dissensions between Hindus and Muslims. Soon, Hindus asserted their Indic heritage under the umbrella of Hindi, which became a unifying factor for Hindus during the freedom struggle. As politicians rake up language issues for electoral gains in different parts of India now, it would be the right time to revisit the pursuits of Hindu stalwarts to unite under a common language to awaken national pride and national unity.

Impeccably packed with numerous references, authentic original sources, survey reports and memorandums, the book is a testimony to the objective and unbigoted research of historian Meenakshi Jain. As a foremost historian of our times, she has silently brought out inconvenient and uncomfortable facts that tore into smithereens the colonial narrative peddled by left-lib historians. This book meticulously decodes the malevolence of British colonialism.

 

Number of pages: 400

Publishers: Aryan Books

@ Copyrights reserved.