Within hours, prominent figures within the Congress party voiced strong disagreement. Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Shukla dismissed Trump’s characterisation outright, calling it “wrong” and asserting that India’s economy remains resilient due to reforms initiated under PV Narasimha Rao and continued under subsequent administrations. Shashi Tharoor went further, describing the 25% U. S. tariff as part of a high-stakes trade negotiation, not a definitive assessment, and emphasised India’s right to resist unreasonable demands while diversifying markets beyond the United States.
Allied Opposition voices echoed this split. Priyanka Chaturvedi of Shiv Sena called Trump’s wording arrogant and ignorant, noting that India remains among the world’s top five fastest‑growing economies. Congress MP Imraan Masood criticised Gandhi’s alignment with Trump’s rhetoric, terming the remarks “very objectionable” and affirming that the nation stands firmly with Modi’s leadership over what he saw as foreign denigration.
Gandhi’s remarks follow Trump’s announcement of a new 25% tariff on Indian imports, tied to terms linked with India’s trade ties to Russia and BRICS nations. Trump wrote on Truth Social: “We have done very little business with India… they can take their dead economies down together.” The comment marked a sharp escalation in trade rhetoric.
Market indicators reacted swiftly: the rupee weakened, the Nifty 50 slipped by roughly 0.3–0.6%, and equities dipped—signals economists warn may reflect deeper investor concern. Analysts have projected that the tariff might shave up to 40 basis points off projected GDP growth, while businesses in sectors like manufacturing and exports brace for potential losses.
The BJP seized on Gandhi’s endorsement to shift narrative. Party spokespersons branded his alignment with Trump’s assessment a “shameful” insult to India’s achievements and aspirations. They highlighted the contrast between Gandhi’s stance and that of Congress leaders who defended India’s economic health, accusing him of undermining national interest for political attention.
Within the Congress, the division reflects deeper strategic and ideological fault lines. Gandhi’s posture positions him as a blunt critic of the government, willing to adopt external criticism to amplify domestic dissent. In contrast, figures like Tharoor and Shukla prioritise defending national credibility while articulating opposition, signalling caution around foreign framing of internal narratives.
Observers suggest this divergence may complicate Congress unity ahead of parliamentary debate. Gandhi’s rhetoric resonates with voters frustrated by job stagnation and agrarian distress; Shukla’s and Tharoor’s responses appeal to those sceptical of political sensationalism and eager to maintain diplomatic poise.
Trade negotiations between India and the U. S. remain unresolved. Tharoor has underscored the importance of sustaining dialogue, warning that excessive tariffs or punitive measures tied to India’s stance on Russia or BRICS risks harming export competitiveness. He emphasised exploring alternative markets if the U. S. remains inflexible.
As India navigates heightened diplomatic friction, the debate over economic reality versus political messaging has implications far beyond parliamentary politics. The discord within the opposition underscores the challenge of aligning economic critique with strategic credibility on the global stage.