Foreign minister S Jaishankar, while speaking at the ET World Leaders Forum, strongly reaffirmed that there can be no compromises on India’s red lines in trade negotiations, particularly concerning the interests of farmers, strategic autonomy, and New Delhi’s consistent opposition to external mediation.

His remarks came against the backdrop of the US delegation abruptly cancelling a planned visit for bilateral trade discussions. Although the talks were paused, Jaishankar clarified that negotiations were “still going on” because communication had not fully broken down between the two sides.

He made it clear that, for India, certain issues were non-negotiable and representations to the contrary must be addressed directly to the Indian people, who would quickly recognise a willingness—or unwillingness—of external actors to stand by the country’s core interests.

A significant point of contention highlighted by Jaishankar was the US criticism of India’s continued purchase of Russian oil, with American officials accusing New Delhi of “profiteering” amidst global instability.

In response, the minister dismissed such accusations as ironic, remarking that it was unusual for representatives of a pro-business administration to attack others simply for doing legitimate business.

He further underlined India’s stance by plainly stating that if countries had a problem with New Delhi’s oil supplies or refined product exports, they were free not to purchase them. In his words, there was no compulsion—for either America or Europe—to buy from India.

At the heart of this rebuttal was Jaishankar’s emphasis that India’s energy policy remains rooted in protecting national interest and exercising strategic autonomy, especially given the need to stabilise domestic supplies and prices in times of global uncertainty.

The minister also spoke about the broader trade framework, reiterating that the primary red lines in negotiations are shaped around safeguarding India’s farmers and, to a lesser extent, small producers.

According to him, defending these economic actors is integral not only for political and social reasons but also for ensuring long-term stability in India’s manufacturing and export ecosystem.

He stressed that international partners opposing India’s stance should be transparent about why they were unwilling to defend the livelihoods of millions of Indian farmers or why they undervalued India’s insistence on sovereign economic decision-making. This uncompromising stance reflects New Delhi’s attempt to maintain economic independence and shield domestic players from external pressures in trade deals with powerful economies such as the US.

On regional dynamics, Jaishankar addressed the sensitive India-China relationship by noting that bilateral ties naturally improve when the border remains stable, predictable, and free of incidents. While disengagement on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has been completed and has already contributed to improvements in other dimensions of the relationship, he clarified that this was not a wholesale reset, but an incremental process.

He referred to tangible sectoral dependencies—such as fertilisers critical for Indian agriculture, machinery essential for infrastructure projects, and magnets vital to the auto industry—arguing that addressing these legitimate needs requires a pragmatic approach in engagement with Beijing. For India, maintaining smooth access to these imports is crucial to sustaining the growth of its key industries and ensuring benefits for workers and producers at home.

Revisiting the subject of oil once more, Jaishankar emphasised India’s stabilising role in global markets, highlighting that when crude oil prices were highly volatile and international nervousness deep, India’s buying patterns helped calm the situation.

He noted that there were very explicit conversations held with the Biden administration at the time, during which the US confirmed that it had no objection to India’s stance on purchasing Russian oil. This acknowledgment further underscores the contrast between occasional political criticism and the pragmatic acceptance of India’s choices in Washington.

In effect, Jaishankar positioned India not merely as a consumer safeguarding its own energy security but also as a responsible player contributing to global market stability.

Taken together, Jaishankar’s intervention painted a clear picture of India’s foreign policy approach: unyielding when it comes to sovereignty, farmers’ interests, and autonomy in trade; firm in rebuffing accusations over its economic decisions; yet open to pragmatic cooperation with major partners including the US and China, provided engagement occurs on terms that respect Indian priorities.

His statement sends a broader message that while India desires constructive ties and ongoing dialogue, it will not dilute its fundamental principles in the face of external pressure.

Based On TOI Report