TradeDeal – Rahul Gandhi Questions PM Modi Over Israel Visit
TradeDeal – A fresh political confrontation has erupted over India’s trade engagement with the United States, with the Opposition raising questions about the timing of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel and alleging impropriety linked to international business dealings.
Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, intensified his criticism of Prime Minister Modi on Wednesday, a day after demanding that the government withdraw what he described as an “unfair” trade agreement between India and the United States. Gandhi suggested that the Prime Minister had left for Israel without responding to concerns raised about the agreement.
Opposition Questions Timing of Israel Visit
In a post on social media platform X, Gandhi accused the Prime Minister of avoiding accountability. He alleged that instead of addressing the challenge to reconsider the trade deal, the Prime Minister had quietly departed for a two-day visit to Israel.
Gandhi also referred to reports circulating in the United States related to the so-called Epstein files, implying that certain disclosures raised serious questions. He used the remarks to sharpen his criticism, repeating his earlier charge that the Prime Minister was “compromised.” The Congress leader argued that the government owed the country a clear explanation regarding both the trade agreement and the nature of India’s international engagements.
The Prime Minister’s Israel visit, however, has been described by the government as part of ongoing diplomatic outreach and strategic cooperation between the two countries.
Allegations Linked to US Disclosures
The controversy deepened as the Congress party sought to connect developments in the United States with India’s foreign policy direction. During a press conference in New Delhi, Congress leader Pawan Khera referred to emails that were made public in the US in connection with investigations involving Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted American financier.
Khera claimed that certain communications suggested attempts to arrange meetings involving Indian political and business figures. He cited a January 2017 email in which Hardeep Singh Puri allegedly sought a meeting with Epstein. According to Khera, subsequent email exchanges indicated discussions involving businessman Anil Ambani and others.
The Congress leader further alleged that Epstein introduced Ambani to Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister of Israel, via email in February 2017. Khera argued that these exchanges pointed to a deeper nexus influencing India-Israel relations after 2014.
Government Yet to Respond to Specific Claims
As of Wednesday evening, there was no detailed response from the government addressing the specific allegations raised by the Congress leadership. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has previously dismissed similar accusations as politically motivated.
The Prime Minister’s visit to Israel is expected to focus on defence cooperation, technology partnerships, and broader strategic ties. India and Israel have significantly strengthened bilateral relations over the past decade, expanding collaboration in sectors such as agriculture, cybersecurity, and innovation.
Political observers note that foreign policy issues often become subjects of intense domestic debate, particularly in the run-up to major policy decisions or international agreements. The India-US trade agreement, which remains a key point of contention, is being viewed by the Opposition as requiring greater transparency.
Trade Agreement Remains Central Issue
Addressing a Kisan Mahachaupal earlier this week, Gandhi alleged that the government had conceded too much in negotiations with the United States. He claimed that external pressures, including controversies involving corporate entities, had influenced the signing of the agreement. He publicly challenged the Prime Minister to revoke the deal if it was not in the national interest.
The government has maintained that trade negotiations are conducted with careful consideration of India’s economic priorities and strategic interests. Officials have described the agreement as part of broader efforts to strengthen economic ties and expand market access.
As political exchanges continue, the debate underscores the sharp divisions between the government and the Opposition over foreign policy decisions and international trade. With Parliament sessions approaching, the matter is likely to remain at the forefront of national political discourse.