US President Donald Trump hardened his stance on Friday saying there was no question of talks with India over bilateral trade agreement unless the tariff issue was resolved.
He was asked by an Indian reporter at the Oval Office, whether he expected talks to resume in the light of 50 pc tariff to be imposed on India, Trump replied, “No, not until we get it resolved”.
Meanwhile, in fast-paced developments, Russian President Vladimir Putin met Indian national security adviser Ajit Doval in Moscow on Thursday and agreed to visit India anytime this year.
Doval met Putin at the Kremlin after his discussions with Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu. Both Doval and Shoigu spoke about the importance of the “very special relationship” between India and Russia amid uncertainties on the global stage.
Doval said India highly values its strategic relationship with Russia. Shoigu said, India and Russia are linked by “strong, time-tested ties of friendship”.
There is a possibility of Prime Minister Narendra Modi meeting Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjing, China, later this month. Putin knows, it was India which sided with Russia when war broke out with Ukraine and decided to buy Russian oil. At that time, Modi had told Putin that war is no solution in this era.
It is a fact that if Trump imposes 50 per cent tariff on India from August 27, it can create problems for India’s pharmaceutical, textiles and jewellery sectors. But this is temporary. Indian exporters and manufacturers will find new markets after sustaining initial losses.
Trump’s decision will also damage prospects of US manufacturers who have a stake in the vast Indian market. American exporters are worried that if Trump’s relationship with India worsens, American may have to bear the consequences.
People who know Modi’s style of working say, he does not waste time in unnecessary arguments. He is a ‘pucca Ahmedabadi’ and is adept at converting crises to opportunities. If India, Russia and China do come together on a single economic platform, they can become a big powerhouse and this can create problems for American businesses.
Vote theft : Why Rahul is unwilling to allege on oath ?
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had been making allegations about “vote theft” in recent weeks. He had promised to drop an “atom bomb” about how there has been vote theft in recent elections. Finally, he produced names and addresses of voters of Mahadevapura assembly segment of Bengaluru Central parliamentary constituency.
He alleged there was a theft of 1,00,250 votes in the constituency that Congress studied in Karnataka, which included 11,965 duplicate voters and 40,009 voters with fake and invalid addresses.
The Chief Electoral Officers of at least three states, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Haryana, asked Rahul Gandhi to submit a signed declaration with the names of “ineligible” persons included in voter lists and eligible voters who were excluded so that necessary action could be taken.
The CEOs said, Rahul Gandhi will have to declare on oath under rule 20 of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, because any false declaration about electoral rolls is punishable under Representation of People Act, 1950.
The presentation that Rahul Gandhi gave at his press conference looked impressive and could provide good ‘masala’ for publicity. But there is a set procedure for challenging irregularities in polls. Every candidate knows, any election result can be challenged in the High Court by filing an election petition. One has to file a declaration on oath if one wants to challenge irregularities in electoral rolls. Rahul didn’t do either of these two.
The most important point to note: casting of votes in Indian elections is a secret process. Nobody must know who cast a vote for which candidate. How can Rahul Gandhi claim that the names of electors that he read out at his presentation voted for BJP?
Secondly, Rahul Gandhi should have filed his complaint before the Election Commission. It is the EC which can declare which voter is fake and which one is real. In Tejashwi Yadav’s case, the RJD leader was initially claiming that his name was missing from the electoral roll, but later it was found that he had two voter cards.
The most interesting part is: Rahul Gandhi and his party and other allies have been opposing SIR (special intensive revision) of electoral rolls in Bihar. If Election Commission does not carry out intensive revision, how can the electoral rolls be corrected? If Rahul Gandhi alleges there are discrepancies in Karnataka electoral rolls, then how can he object to checking of voters’ lists in Bihar?