Closely following developments: India on US bill to impose tariffs on nations procuring Russian oil
New Delhi (PTI): India on Friday said it is closely following developments relating to a proposed legislation by the US that seeks to impose up to 500 per cent tariffs on countries procuring Russian crude oil.
India and China are among a handful of countries which are procuring significant volumes of crude oil from Russia.
US Senator Lindsey Graham, the author of the bill, said this week that President Donald Trump has green-lighted the proposed legislation.
"We are aware of the proposed bill. We are closely following the developments," External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said at his weekly media briefing.
India has been stoutly defending its procurement of Russian crude oil, saying the purchase is driven by market dynamics and to address the energy requirement of 1.4 billion people of the country.
"Our position on the larger question of energy sourcing is well known," Jaiswal said.
ALSO READ: Nine killed, around 40 injured as private bus falls into 500-feet deep gorge in Himachal's Sirmaur
"In this endeavour, we are guided by the evolving dynamics of the global market and by the imperative to secure affordable energy from diverse sources to meet the energy security needs of our 1.4 billion people," he said.
On Wednesday, Senator Graham said he had a "very productive meeting" with Trump and that the president has green-lighted the Russia sanctions bill that has been in the works for months.
"This will be well-timed, as Ukraine is making concessions for peace, and Putin is all talk, continuing to kill the innocent. This bill will allow President Trump to punish those countries that buy cheap Russian oil, fuelling Putin's war machine," Graham said on social media this week.
"This bill would give President Trump tremendous leverage against countries like China, India and Brazil to incentivise them to stop buying the cheap Russian oil that provides the financing for Putin's bloodbath against Ukraine," he said.
The bill has proposed a 500 per cent tariff on secondary purchase and reselling of Russian oil.
Earlier this week, Graham said that Indian Ambassador to the US Vinay Kwatra informed him about New Delhi reducing its purchases of Russian oil and asked him to convey to President Trump to "relieve the tariff" imposed on India.
The US has been putting pressure on India to cut its procurement of Russian crude oil as it believes Moscow is financing its war against Ukraine using the oil revenue.
India turned to purchasing Russian oil sold at a discount after Western countries imposed sanctions on Moscow and shunned its supplies over its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Consequently, from a mere 1.7 per cent share in total oil imports in 2019-20, Russia's share increased to 35.1 per cent in 2024-25.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ballari violence: Were cops made scapegoats to cover political failure?
Bengaluru: Across Karnataka, a serious discussion has begun after the violence in Ballari and the swift action taken against police officers who were on the ground that day. The core question being asked is simple: when law and order fails, why are police officers the first to be shown the door, while political responsibility is quietly pushed aside?
The January 1 clash in Ballari was not a sudden street fight. It was a political confrontation involving supporters of two sitting MLAs. A banner related to the unveiling of a Valmiki statue became the flashpoint. What followed was stone-pelting, firing, and the death of a Congress worker. The situation spiralled within hours.
Within a day, Ballari SP Pavan Nejjur was suspended. Soon after, senior officers were reshuffled. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vartika Katiyar was transferred. No official reason was cited in the notification. But the timing made one thing clear: accountability, at least on paper, had been fixed.
Since then, there has been unease within police circles and political debate outside it.
Unconfirmed reports that Nejjur attempted suicide after his suspension were firmly denied by senior officers and the home minister. They said he was safe, resting, and under stress. Still, the very fact that such reports gained traction says something about the pressure officers feel when action is taken overnight, without public clarity.
Opposition leaders have called Nejjur a scapegoat, pointing out that he had taken charge only hours before the violence. They have asked how an officer can be blamed for a political clash he barely had time to assess. They have also drawn parallels with earlier incidents where police leadership was suspended after tragedies, while political decision-making remained untouched.
However, responding to this criticism, Home Minister G Parameshwara rejected the argument that the suspension was unfair because Nejjur had assumed charge only hours earlier. “It is not important whether he reported to duty on the same day (of incident) or one hour back. Duty is duty. He is not new to the department. IPS officers are trained to handle such situations any time. If he had acted swiftly and promptly, he could have prevented the situation from escalating.” He had said adding that Nejjur did not discharge his duties properly and that this was the reason for his suspension.
Now, fresh and unconfirmed reports suggest that Vartika Katiyar may have met a senior cabinet minister, questioning why she was made to pay the price for a situation that was political in nature. There is no official confirmation of this meeting. But the talk itself has added fuel to the debate.
What is being discussed in the state is not whether the police made mistakes. Many acknowledge that the situation on January 1 was mishandled. A clash earlier in the day was allowed to cool down without strong preventive action. Later, a banner came up near a politically sensitive location. The crowd should not have been allowed to build up. Better anticipation was needed.
At the same time, critics are asking whether the entire burden can be placed on officers when the trigger itself was political rivalry. Who installed the banner? Who mobilised supporters? Who had armed private gunmen present at the spot? These are questions that are still part of the investigation, yet administrative punishment moved faster than political accountability.
This has led to a wider comparison with past incidents, including the Bengaluru stampede after the RCB victory celebrations. There too, police officers were suspended after lives were lost, while decisions taken at higher levels were defended as unavoidable. Many are now saying Ballari fits into the same pattern.
The argument being made is not that the police are blameless. The argument is that responsibility appears to stop at the uniform. When things go wrong, officers are transferred or suspended to send a message. But when the violence is rooted in political rivalry, that message feels incomplete.
Within police ranks, there is also quiet concern about working conditions. Officers say they are expected to manage volatile political situations overnight, often with little room to push back against powerful interests. When things hold, they are invisible. When they collapse, they stand alone.
The Ballari episode has once again exposed this fault line.
For the government, the challenge is larger than one suspension or transfer. The real test is whether it is willing to publicly acknowledge political failures when law and order breaks down, instead of letting the system suggest that the police alone dropped the ball.
For now, what remains is a growing feeling across Karnataka that accountability is selective. And that whenever politics turns violent, the easiest answer is to change the officers, not the decisions that led to the violence in the first place.
