Trump's War on India: A Grim Warning for Washington's Other Pawns

India is finally being forced to face the music.

Trump has been absolutely tearing into India lately. Why? Because New Delhi refuses to simply roll over in their ongoing tariff dispute. So, in classic Trump fashion, he's gone on the offensive with both words and actions, branding India a “dead economy” and slapping a hefty 25% tariff on its goods. 

But India didn't flinch. When they stood their ground and insisted on continuing to buy Russian oil, Trump took to social media on August 4th to double down: “India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine.” And he added, "Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA."

The Hubris of "New India"

Telling India to surrender just doesn't sit right with the image Prime Minister Modi’s government has built for itself. Since Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept into power in 2014, Hindu nationalism has exploded, becoming the dominant political force and seeping into every corner of Indian life. This has cultivated a powerful sense of national self-confidence, a belief that India is always winning. At its core, this is a religious-based nationalism hell-bent on forging a powerful Hindu state. Back in 2017, Modi laid out his grand vision for a “New India,” boldly proclaiming that the country would be a fully developed country by 2047.

When the first Trump administration came to town in 2017, its anti-China rhetoric clearly emboldened India. Economically, New Delhi launched its ambitious "Production Linked Incentive" in 2021, aiming to boost manufacturing to 25% of its economy by 2025 and directly challenge the "Made in China" powerhouse. But, thanks to India's notorious inefficiency, its manufacturing share of GDP actually shrank, falling from 16% in 2015 to a mere 13% today. Politically, things have been just as tense, with border clashes against China escalating since the June 2020 standoff in the Galwan Valley. You have to ask: without Washington egging them on, would India have been so keen to keep poking the dragon?

When "Win-ology" Masters Collide

Modi’s government has perfected its own unique doctrine of "win-ology"—a political strategy where they declare victory regardless of the actual outcome. It's quite something to behold. Take the recent air battles with Pakistan, for example. Using Chinese-made J-10CE fighters, Pakistan managed to shoot down five Indian warplanes, including three French-made Rafales. A stunning defeat, right? Not in India. They refused to admit defeat and instead threw a massive, nationwide "victory" party. As if that wasn't enough, they dispatched at least five diplomatic missions to spread the news of their “triumph”.

But when a “Win-ology Master” like Modi runs into the undisputed “Win-ology Grandmaster,” Donald Trump, the game changes completely.

Modi loves to boast about being great pals with Trump, but it’s clear Trump isn't buying it. President Biden was happy to encourage Apple to shift its production from China to India, but Trump wants those factories back in the USA, period. Biden didn't seem to mind India’s high tariffs and trade barriers, but Trump demands zero tariffs on American goods from everyone. As Trump himself would say, only he gets to impose tariffs on you – you don’t get to impose tariffs on him. He’s got to win, period. With Modi refusing to back down, Trump unleashed his latest barrage. You can almost hear the frustration in New Delhi: “But… I went after China for you! Why are you attacking me?!”

Pot, Meet Kettle: India Calls Out Western Hypocrisy

While Modi himself has stayed quiet, wisely avoiding a direct confrontation with Trump, his Ministry of External Affairs dropped a blistering statement on August 4th, calling out the US and Europe for their blatant hypocrisy.

First, they pointed out that it was America who pushed them to buy Russian oil in the first place. The ministry stated: “India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability.” So, did the Biden administration indeed encourage this to prevent oil prices from skyrocketing and fueling global inflation? It certainly seems so. Honestly, America, encouraging a country to do something and then savaging them for it? What kind of twisted game is that?

Second, India accused its critics of having their own skeletons in the closet. The ministry argued that its imports were about securing affordable energy for its people, adding: “However, it is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion.”

To back this up, they presented the figures, starting with the EU. In 2024, EU-Russia goods trade hit €67.5 billion, with another €17.2 billion in services in 2023—far more than India's trade with Russia. Europe also imported a record 16.5 million tons of Russian LNG in 2024. Then they turned to the US, noting its continued imports of Russian uranium, palladium, fertilizer, and chemicals. The message from New Delhi is crystal clear: “You’re all still buying from Russia, so why are you singling us out?”

A Cautionary Tale for Hong Kong

Let's be honest, India's comeback is sharp and it exposes America's glaring double standards. But in Trump's world, India isn't China; it simply lacks the power to truly hit back. If you don't bow down, he'll just keep swinging until you do.

And this brings us to the real lesson here. If a rising superpower of 1.4 billion people like India can be so easily used and then discarded by the United States—simply because China is the only rival America can't seem to handle—then why on earth would Hong Kong’s opposition, who have long looked to Washington for support against Beijing, believe they would be treated any differently? On what grounds do they think they stand a chance of outplaying Beijing when their supposed ally is this fickle? They would do well to watch what is happening to India very, very closely.

 Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.

Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.

On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.

Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."

Court Slams the Door Shut

The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.

The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.

Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.

Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.

1.⁠ ⁠Chow's passion for making requests

As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).

Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.

This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.

2.⁠ ⁠Burning public funds on the public's dime

Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.

Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.

3.⁠ ⁠Prison is not a holiday resort

Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.

Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.

How Prison Oversight Actually Works

I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.

The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.

Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.

I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.

Lo Wing-hung