Trump aide: India funding Russia's Ukraine war via oil
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," "What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia."
Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin hold talks in Moscow on July 8, 2024. (Photo: Getty Images)
Vivek Mishra works as an Assistant Editor with Eastern Eye and has over 13 years of experience in journalism. His areas of interest include politics, international affairs, current events, and sports. With a background in newsroom operations and editorial planning, he has reported and edited stories on major national and global developments.
A SENIOR aide to US president Donald Trump has accused India of funding Russia's war in Ukraine by continuing to buy oil from Moscow.
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," "What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia."
Miller described India's oil imports from Russia as a major concern for the US.
"People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That's an astonishing fact," he said.
The Indian Embassy in Washington did not immediately comment. Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday that New Delhi will continue to buy oil from Moscow despite US threats.
A 25 per cent tariff on Indian products took effect on Friday over India's purchase of Russian military equipment and energy.
Trump has also warned of 100 per cent tariffs on US imports from countries buying Russian oil unless Russia reaches a peace deal with Ukraine.
Miller added that Trump has a "tremendous" relationship with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.
FILE PHOTO: Mourners carry the coffins of victims who died in the Air India Flight 171 crash, for funeral ceremony in Ahmedabad on June 21, 2025. (Photo: Getty Images)
FAMILIES of four passengers who died in the Air India crash in June have filed a lawsuit in a US court against Boeing and Honeywell International, alleging that a faulty fuel cut-off switch caused the disaster.
The case, filed in Delaware Superior Court by The Lanier Law Firm, seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the wrongful deaths of four passengers on flight AI171.
On June 12, the Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner operating flight AI171 to London Gatwick crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad, killing 260 people, including 241 passengers. It was one of the worst air disasters in India in more than three decades.
According to the lawsuit, flight data shows that a pilot accidentally cut off fuel to the aircraft’s engines just seconds after take-off, leading to a complete loss of thrust. The fuel cut-off switch, manufactured by Honeywell and installed by Boeing, is supposed to have a locking mechanism to prevent accidental shut-off.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), which is probing the crash, said in its preliminary report that the fuel switches were cut off within one second of each other, causing confusion in the cockpit before the plane plunged into a building. Cockpit voice recordings captured one pilot asking the other why he had cut the switch, to which the second pilot denied doing so.
The lawsuit alleges that the switches are located just behind the thrust levers, an area of “high traffic” during take-off. Documents cited in the case suggest that both Boeing and Honeywell knew the locking mechanism could be easily disengaged or even absent.
A 2018 Federal Aviation Administration report reportedly confirmed the issue, but the companies did not alert airlines or provide replacement switches, according to the law firm.
“This defect is like putting an emergency brake next to a radio knob in a car. But unlike a car, restarting jet engines takes minutes, not seconds,” said Benjamin Major of The Lanier Law Firm. “Once the engines shut down, the aircraft essentially became a 250,000-pound lawn dart.”
Meanwhile, the family of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, one of the pilots who died in the crash, has asked for a formal government investigation.
His 91-year-old father, Pushkaraj Sabharwal, wrote to the civil aviation secretary and the AAIB, saying that leaks from the inquiry had led to damaging speculation about his son’s mental state. He said such innuendos had caused him deep distress and tarnished his son’s reputation.
The AAIB is continuing its inquiry into the cause of the crash, which remains one of the deadliest aviation tragedies in India since the 1990s.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Swaminarayan Akshardham temple in Robbinsville, New Jersey
BAPS has welcomed the decision of the US Justice Department to close its investigation into alleged worker exploitation during the construction of its Swaminarayan Akshardham temple in Robbinsville, New Jersey.
The inquiry began in 2021 after a group of Indian workers filed a lawsuit in the District Court of New Jersey. They accused the organisation of human trafficking and wage violations, claiming they had been paid as little as $1 a day while building the vast temple complex.
The workers alleged they were confined to the site and forced to work long hours under difficult and, at times, unsafe conditions.
At the time, The New York Times reported that more than 200 Indian nationals had travelled to the US on religious ‘R-1’ visas from around 2018 to work on the project. The lawsuit said six men were among those subjected to gruelling hours and restricted freedom during construction.
The allegations led to strong criticism of BAPS, with questions raised about labour rights, immigration rules, and the treatment of religious workers in the US. The case drew international media attention and cast a shadow over what was meant to be a landmark project for the Hindu community in North America.
On Thursday (18), the Justice Department and the US Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey confirmed that they had ended their investigation. No violations were established, bringing to a close a four-year period of scrutiny for the organisation.
BAPS North America welcomed the outcome, saying it reaffirmed its position that the temple was built through the devotion, voluntary service, and contributions of thousands of followers. The organisation acknowledged that the allegations had been a “challenging” moment but said it now moved forward with renewed strength and confidence.
It also described the Akshardham temple as a symbol of peace and service, and as a marker of the Hindu community’s growing presence in the US.
The Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA) also expressed relief at the closure of the investigation. It said the case had been used to target the broader Hindu faith and community, despite the allegations remaining unproven.
While welcoming the Justice Department’s decision, CoHNA argued that the community had suffered reputational harm and called for accountability from those who had, in its view, spread misinformation.
BAPS further noted that the Hindu community in America is still comparatively young but has established itself as an integral part of the nation’s religious landscape. The temple in Robbinsville, it said, now stands as an enduring example of faith, dedication, and cultural contribution.
The US Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey declined to comment on the decision.
BAPS said it hoped Akshardham would continue to be recognised not for controversy, but for its art, architecture, and the spirit of devotion and service it represents.
PRIME MINISTER Keir Starmer has vowed that Britain will not allow people to feel unsafe “because of their background or the colour of their skin” after violent clashes erupted at one of the largest far-right rallies the country has ever seen.
Speaking last Sunday (14), a day after the “Unite the Kingdom” march led by activist Tommy Robinson, Starmer condemned the violence against police officers and rejected attempts to use national flags as symbols of division.
“People have a right to peaceful protest. It is core to our country’s values. But we will not stand for assaults on police officers doing their job or for people feeling intimidated on our streets because of their background or the colour of their skin,” Starmer said on X. “Britain is a nation proudly built on tolerance, diversity and respect. Our flag represents our diverse country and we will never surrender it to those that use it as a symbol of violence, fear and division”.
According to the Metropolitan Police, around 110,000 to 150,000 people gathered in central London for last Saturday’s (13) demonstration, with crowds waving English and Union flags and chanting anti-immigration slogans. Officers clashed with protesters on the fringes of the rally, leaving 26 police injured, four of them seriously, and leading to at least 24 arrests.
Police described facing “unacceptable violence”, including kicks, punches, bottles, flares and other projectiles. Assistant commissioner Matt Twist said investigations were under way and warned that “robust police action” would follow in the coming days and weeks.
Echoing the same sentiment, home secretary Shabana Mahmood told MPs on Monday (15) that the violence was “abhorrent” and singled out US billionaire Elon Musk, who addressed the crowd by video link, for stoking unrest. “On Saturday, well over 100,000 protesters marched in London. In doing so, many exercised an ancient right, the right to peaceful protest. But not everyone did; some turned on the brave police officers who were there to keep the peace,” she said.
“Those violent thugs will face the full force of the law, but they do not represent who this country really is. When a foreign billionaire calls on our citizens to fight against our ancient democracy, I know this is met by the vast majority with a shake of the head. That is because we are, in truth, a tolerant country. And we are a diverse one too. You can be English with roots here that stretch back 1,000 years. But you can also be English and look like me.”
Protesters march through London waving national flags during the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally last Saturday (13)
She went on to echo Starmer’s defence of Britain’s national symbols. “The St George’s Cross and the Union Jack are symbols of unity and must never be hijacked by those seeking to spread division. Whether you are a hostile state or a hostile foreign billionaire, no one gets to mess with British democracy,” she said.
Mahmood, one of the most senior Muslim women in British politics, also delivered a personal message: “British citizens look like me. We are proud to be both British and part of this diverse heritage.”
Sunder Katwala, director of the thinktank British Future, said the size of the rally and Musk’s speech represented a dangerous escalation. “The scale of Saturday’s march will have sent a shudder of fear through many people from ethnic minority backgrounds and beyond. Tommy Robinson is a polarising and broadly unpopular figure among the public as a whole but the scale of turnout shows his increasing ability to mobilise a vocal minority who strongly believe that they speak for this country,” he told Eastern Eye.
“A large section of the crowd would not see a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ event as far right with its mix of themes of immigration, free speech, identity and culture. But the organisers had no qualms about platforming extreme content, including removing the freedom of religious expression.”
Katwala warned that the most alarming aspect of the rally was hearing one of the world’s wealthiest figures appear to endorse violence. He argued that Musk’s remarks went further than Enoch Powell’s controversial “Rivers of Blood” speech, which had predicted unrest to shape policy. In contrast, Musk’s call for pre-emptive confrontation, telling people to either fight or face death and erasure, risked placing asylum seekers, migrants, minority communities and even democratic leaders in danger.
He added that, after the riots of last summer, it was deeply irresponsible to give legitimacy to such rhetoric. According to him, Parliament should consider formally censuring Musk, with the government’s future use of his platforms, and even his right to enter the UK, depending on a retraction. He cautioned that calls for civil conflict must not be allowed to become accepted as part of normal political debate.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, told the rally that Britain’s courts had placed the rights of asylum seekers above those of the “local community”. Referring to a recent case in Essex where asylum seekers were allowed to be housed at a local hotel, he accused judges of betraying the British people.
“They told the world that Somalians, Afghans, Pakistanis, all of them, their rights supersede yours – the British public, the people that built this nation,” he declared.
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson attends the demonstration
Many demonstrators carried placards reading “send them home” and wore “Make America Great Again” hats, while others brought children to the rally. One supporter, Sandra Mitchell, said: “Today is the spark of a cultural revolution in Great Britain, this is our moment. We want our country back.”
Via video link, Musk went further, telling the crowd: “Violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.” He also called for the dissolution of parliament and the removal of the Labour government. Anti-racism groups expressed alarm at his intervention. Hope Not Hate described the event as “unprecedented” in scale and warned that speeches demanding “remigration” of legal migrants and banning non-Christian religions showed how extreme messages were being normalised.
The “Stand Up to Racism” counterprotest drew around 5,000 people. Teachers, activists and faith groups marched through nearby streets, holding placards calling for unity and chanting “refugees are welcome here”. One participant, teacher Ben Hetchin, said: “The idea of hate is dividing us and I think the more that we welcome people, the stronger we are as a country.”
Police kept the groups apart, but confrontations occurred when some Robinson supporters attempted to break through barriers.
The protest comes amid a record number of asylum claims in Britain, with more than 28,000 migrants crossing the Channel in small boats so far this year. Immigration has become the most dominant political issue, even surpassing concerns about the economy.
Supporters of the march claim the English and Union flags being displayed across towns represent pride in national identity. Anti-racism campaigners, however, argue that these flags are being used as a message of hostility towards foreigners. For the Labour government, Saturday’s rally is a warning of the challenges ahead. Starmer has pledged to strengthen laws against hate crimes while ensuring the right to peaceful protest.
Mahmood has promised tougher policing of violent disorder.
Anti-racism groups stage a counter-protest against the anti-immigration rall
But campaigners fear that mainstream politics is being destabilised by a mix of online radicalisation and the influence of powerful outsiders such as Musk.
For now, the Metropolitan Police continue their investigations. “Those who assaulted our officers or engaged in violence can expect to be identified and arrested,” Twist said.
The weekend’s events have left the country debating not only how to respond to far-right extremism, but also how to safeguard its democracy, diversity and sense of national unity in an increasingly tense political climate.
Keep ReadingShow less
Chancellor Rachel Reeves speaks at a business reception at Lancaster House in central London. Jordan Pettitt/Pool via REUTERS
BRITAIN's borrowing has surged past the official forecasts that underpin the government's tax and spending plans, compounding the challenge facing chancellor Rachel Reeves in her November budget.
Public sector borrowing between April and August totalled £83.8 billion ($113.39), £11.4bn more than forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility earlier this year, official data published on Friday (19) showed.
The borrowing was the highest for the first five months of the financial year since 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic forced the government into huge spending to prop up the economy.
Even before Friday's figures, Reeves had been expected to announce fresh tax increases in her budget on November 26 to stay on track to meet her fiscal rules and avoid unsettling financial markets.
Sterling fell by almost half a cent against the US dollar after the ONS released the borrowing figures along with separate data that showed a stronger-than-expected increase in retail sales volumes in August.
In August alone, the government borrowed almost £18bn, the Office for National Statistics said, much higher than the OBR estimate of a £12.5bn overshoot.
A Reuters poll of economists showed a median forecast of a £12.75bn deficit in August.
"Last month’s borrowing was the highest August total since the pandemic," ONS chief economist Grant Fitzner said. "Although overall tax and National Insurance receipts were noticeably up on last year, these increases were outstripped by higher spending on public services, benefits and debt interest."
The ONS said its estimates for borrowing in recent months had been revised higher by almost £6bn after updated data from the tax office showed value-added tax receipts were lower than initially thought.
Updated figures from local and devolved administrations also contributed to the revision.
Prior to Friday's data release, public sector borrowing had been tracking close to the OBR's forecast for the year to date.
(Reuters)
Keep ReadingShow less
Thames Valley Police officers conduct security checks in Windsor last Friday (12) ahead of Donald Trump’s state visit
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump’s visit sees the British state deploy all of its pomp and pageantry to stroke his ego. King Charles has the constitutional duty of pretending to like the American president, as his UK government seeks to limit the economic damage and diplomatic fallout of this more volatile second Trump term.
But could Trump’s presence provide a spectre of British politics yet to come? He arrives with Reform leader Nigel Farage riding high in the polls, and after Tommy Robinson’s mass rally in London.
Hope Not Hate called it the biggest far-right rally in British history. Many of those who attended would dispute that characterisation, but the organisers certainly had no qualms about platforming extremist content. Elon Musk went much further than Enoch Powell, whose ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech claimed to be prophesying violence to avert the danger. The radicalised Musk told the large crowd that violence was coming, so that they should adopt it pre-emptively. Musk’s ability to enter Britain in future must depend on a public retraction of this call for violence.
The mood music of British politics seems to be moving sharply to the right. Yet the Labour government has lost its voice on challenging racism for much of this summer. When it is struggling so badly on asylum, the fear of being perceived to call everybody racist has seemingly left it unable to criticise even neo-Nazis.
Immigration was one of Trump’s strongest issues at the last election. Nigel Farage now seeks to emulate that with his arguments for mass deportations and abolishing asylum in the UK.
So a new BritishFuture report, “How we can actually stop the boats,” takes on the exam question that does most to keep ministers up at night. I have coauthored the report with Frank Sharry, a US immigration expert who also worked for the Biden and Harris campaigns. It details some surprising lessons from America about how to avoid our own Trump moment here.
For three years, the Biden administration struggled with unauthorised entry of two million people a year – a much greater inflow than the small boats that feel like an existential threat in Downing Street. Biden initially sought to duck the issue, seeing it as a distraction from his economic agenda. But that political strategy of avoidance failed.
Yet the untold story about the Biden administration at the border is not just about political failure – but also of a belated policy success. A mix of diplomatic cooperation, a significant new legal route and the refusal and return of those who came outside of it, led to illegal border crossings from Mexico falling by 81 per cent in the final year of the Biden administration. It happened too late, politically, for the Kamala Harris campaign, but it offers insight to Shabana Mahmood and Keir Starmer over how to defeat Trumpism in Britain.
The UK and US contexts are not identical but there are transferable lessons. The new UK-French pilot scheme works on similar principles. The initial pilot scheme may begin by removing 50 people a week – about 2,500 a year. That is around one in seventeen people crossing the Channel. A pilot won’t significantly reduce numbers, or disrupt the smugglers’ business model, while most people know this is unlikely to affect them .
But if the pilot can be expanded ten-fold, it would make returns more likely than not. At twenty times the scale, it could operationalise a returns guarantee. That could reduce crossings by 75 per cent and provide a path to closing down the irregular route as a viable way to claim asylum in Britain. The US experience offers hard evidence of what can be achieved when this approach is delivered at scale. The government does want to scale the pilot at pace and is dealing with the legal, practical and political challenges, including political instability in France.
The British Future report presents striking new evidence of how the ‘routes for returns’ deal can depolarise public opinion too. We hear a lot about the anger of those protesting outside hotels, and sometimes the counterprotestors too. But most people are balancers on immigration. A majority want action on Channel crossings but still want Britain to protect refugees in need. Farage’s rejectionist case for ditching the principle of refugee protection would destroy too much; but the humanitarian counter-argument needs to combine both more control as well as more compassion if it is to secure popular support.
The anti-Trump protestors can claim to speak for Britain: three-quarters of people remain bemused that American voters could have chosen Trump a second time.
Most people would prefer an orderly, controlled and humane system to the populist threat of tearing everything up. The government’s job is to show that combining control and compassion can work.
Sunder Katwala
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.