India has sharply raised import duties on gold and silver to 15% from 6%, a significant policy reversal aimed at curbing runaway demand for bullion and easing intense pressure on the rupee.

This comes just days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally appealed to citizens to reduce gold purchases for the next year.

The new structure, announced through government notifications on Wednesday, includes a 10% basic customs duty and an additional 5% tax. The move underscores the government’s growing alarm over the country’s widening trade deficit and the rupee’s slide to record lows against the dollar.

Surging Gold Demand Adds to Economic Strain

As the world’s second-largest gold consumer, India has seen a dramatic spike in bullion imports. Average monthly gold imports jumped to 83 tons in the first two months of 2026, up from 53 tons in 2025, according to the World Gold Council. In value terms, gold demand in the first quarter of 2026 nearly doubled year-on-year to a record $25 billion, fueled largely by strong investment buying in January.

This surge has compounded India’s already challenging external balances. The country posted a merchandise trade deficit exceeding $330 billion in the financial year ending March 2026, up from more than $280 billion the previous year. Gold and silver now account for nearly 11% of total imports, while crude oil and petroleum products make up 22%.

“Lower gold imports can indeed help lower current account outflows for India, as gold import outlays are substantial,” said Vishrut Rana, Asia-Pacific economist at S&P Global Ratings.

However, he noted that “energy costs are still front and center, and while these are elevated, we expect pressure on the rupee will persist.”

India imports nearly 85% of its fuel needs and was heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz for about 50% of its crude oil, 60% of its liquefied natural gas, and nearly all of its LPG supplies before recent Middle East disruptions. Rising global energy prices linked to the Iran conflict have significantly widened both the trade and current account deficits, putting sustained downward pressure on the rupee.

In response, Prime Minister Modi on Monday urged citizens to conserve fuel by using public transport, working from home, and carpooling. India has notably avoided raising pump prices, a move that would trigger “demand destruction”, and has instead turned to import curbs and duty hikes.

Economist Trinh Nguyen of Natixis criticized the approach, telling CNBC: “India is backtracking on liberalization of the market, which investors like about India.”

She added that the government is shifting away from economic liberalization in favor of direct interventions.

Cultural vs. Macroeconomic Trade-off

The policy shift highlights a classic tension in India: gold’s deep cultural and emotional significance. Bullion is central to weddings, festivals, and religious traditions, and serves as a trusted store of value and hedge against inflation for millions of households. Higher duties risk pushing some demand underground into smuggling channels, as seen during previous duty spikes, while hurting the powerful jewelry industry that employs millions.

The timing is particularly sensitive. The government is trying to manage external vulnerabilities without derailing domestic consumption or alienating key voter bases ahead of future political cycles.

India is not acting alone. Several Asian nations are encouraging lower fuel consumption amid elevated energy costs and Middle East tensions. However, India’s dual challenge, curbing both gold and energy imports, is especially acute given its massive population and high dependence on imported commodities.

The duty increase is expected to cool import volumes in the coming months, but analysts expect its success will ultimately depend on global oil prices, domestic economic sentiment, and the effectiveness of Modi’s public appeals for moderation.

While the latest intervention may provide short-term relief to the rupee and current account, analysts warn that sustained stability will require addressing deeper structural issues. They include boosting domestic energy production, improving export competitiveness, and creating alternative financial savings instruments that can compete with gold’s cultural appeal.

The courtroom battle between Sam Altman and Elon Musk has evolved far beyond a dispute over corporate structure. The trial is now exposing a bitter ideological and financial conflict over who should control artificial intelligence, how its profits should be distributed, and whether one of Silicon Valley’s most influential companies abandoned its original mission in pursuit of enormous commercial gains.

Testifying in federal court in Oakland, California, Altman on Tuesday forcefully rejected Musk’s allegation that OpenAI’s leadership betrayed the organization’s founding commitment to build AI for humanity’s benefit rather than for corporate enrichment.

“It feels difficult to even wrap my head around that framing,” Altman said when asked about Musk’s accusation that he and OpenAI President Greg Brockman effectively “stole a charity.”

The high-stakes trial, now entering its third week before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, could reshape the future of OpenAI as the company weighs a potential initial public offering that analysts and investors believe could eventually value the firm at around $1 trillion.

At the core of the lawsuit is Musk’s claim that OpenAI abandoned its nonprofit mission after attracting billions of dollars in capital and commercial partnerships, especially from Microsoft. In his August 2024 lawsuit, Musk alleged that Altman and other OpenAI leaders persuaded him to contribute roughly $38 million to a nonprofit dedicated to safely advancing AI for humanity, only to later transform the organization into a profit-driven enterprise.

Musk is seeking about $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, with the money intended for the nonprofit arm of OpenAI. He is also seeking the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership positions. The case has become one of the most consequential legal confrontations in the technology industry, arriving at a moment when generative AI systems are reshaping global business, labor markets, media, defense, and geopolitics.

Altman sought to turn Musk’s accusations back on him, portraying the billionaire entrepreneur not as a protector of OpenAI’s mission but as someone who repeatedly sought dominant control over the company.

Asked whether Musk opposed OpenAI becoming a for-profit business, Altman replied, “quite the opposite.” According to Altman, Musk at one point demanded a 90% stake in OpenAI, a proposal that left him “extremely uncomfortable” because it would have effectively concentrated control of the organization in Musk’s hands.

Altman said his concerns stemmed partly from observing power dynamics at SpaceX, where Musk consolidated substantial authority over the aerospace company.

“I had quite a lot of experience with startups, had seen a lot of control fights,” Altman testified.

The testimony cuts directly against Musk’s broader public narrative that OpenAI’s leadership corrupted the company’s mission by commercializing it. Altman’s defense instead attempts to frame Musk as a frustrated co-founder who failed to gain sufficient control over an organization that later became one of the most strategically important companies in artificial intelligence.

Altman also testified that he opposed a proposal to merge OpenAI with Tesla, arguing such a move would have compromised OpenAI’s independence.

“I don’t think we would have had the ability to ensure that mission was acted on,” Altman said. “Fundamentally, Tesla needs to serve its customers and sell cars.”

What is More to the Dispute?

The exchange underscores how the dispute is fundamentally about governance and power as much as technology. OpenAI’s transition from nonprofit research lab to one of Silicon Valley’s most valuable commercial AI firms has created tensions over whether the company can simultaneously pursue enormous profits and uphold its original safety-oriented mission.

Lawyers for Musk spent much of Tuesday attempting to undermine Altman’s credibility, portraying him as a manipulative executive whose public messaging differs sharply from internal conduct. Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, cited testimony from former OpenAI officials and board members who allegedly questioned Altman’s honesty. One former board member described what was characterized in court as a “toxic culture of lying,” while multiple former officials reportedly testified that they did not trust him.

“Have you misled people when you do business?” Molo asked.

“I believe I am an honest and trustworthy business person,” Altman responded.

When pressed again, Altman answered: “I do not think so.”

The line of questioning revived scrutiny surrounding Altman’s dramatic temporary removal from OpenAI in late 2023, when the board abruptly ousted him over concerns related to candor and governance before reinstating him days later following internal backlash and pressure from employees and investors.

Altman testified that he briefly considered leaving for Microsoft during the crisis but ultimately decided to return because OpenAI was too important to abandon.

“I was willing to run back into a burning building to save it,” he said.

The trial is also offering rare insight into the extraordinary scale of capital flowing into artificial intelligence. Altman testified that OpenAI has raised approximately $175 billion from investors over its lifetime as the company races to secure computing infrastructure needed to train increasingly powerful AI models.

That spending race has become central to the global AI competition, with firms pouring unprecedented sums into semiconductors, data centers, and energy infrastructure. OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor added another dramatic dimension to the proceedings on Tuesday when he testified that Musk’s AI company, xAI, led a formal takeover attempt for OpenAI’s nonprofit arm in February 2025, months after Musk initiated legal action.

“I was surprised,” Taylor testified. “This proposal was to acquire this non-profit by a group of for-profit investors, which felt contradictory to the spirit of the lawsuit.”

That revelation could become a significant element in OpenAI’s defense strategy because it potentially weakens Musk’s argument that his lawsuit is purely about preserving OpenAI’s nonprofit mission.

The proceedings have also highlighted broader tensions inside OpenAI during Musk’s early involvement with the organization. Altman testified that some employees felt relieved after Musk departed OpenAI’s board in 2018 because they believed his management style was demoralizing researchers.

“I don’t think Mr. Musk understood how to run a good research lab,” Altman said. “He had demotivated some of our most key researchers.”

The testimony paints a picture of an organization divided not only by ideology but also by conflicting visions of leadership, governance, and AI development strategy. Several influential figures from the AI industry have already testified, including former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, who said he spent about a year compiling evidence for OpenAI directors regarding what he described as Altman’s “consistent pattern of lying.”

Satya Nadella also testified, describing Microsoft’s massive investment in OpenAI as a “calculated risk,” highlighting how deeply intertwined the software giant has become with the future of generative AI.

The case is increasingly viewed as a referendum on the future structure of the AI industry itself. The outcome could influence how courts interpret nonprofit-to-for-profit transitions in advanced technology sectors, how founders can exert control over mission-driven organizations, and how regulators may eventually oversee artificial intelligence companies with enormous economic and societal influence.

With testimony expected to conclude this week and jurors potentially beginning deliberations by May 18, the trial has already exposed the deep fractures behind the public image of the AI revolution. What began as a partnership among Silicon Valley figures promising to develop safe AI for humanity has devolved into accusations of greed, deception, power consolidation, and betrayal.

SoftBank Group reported a massive $46 billion gain in its Vision Fund for the financial year ended March 31, the vast majority of which stemmed from the skyrocketing valuation of its enormous stake in OpenAI.

The performance marks one of the most dramatic single-year turnarounds for the fund and underscores Masayoshi Son’s aggressive, conviction-driven approach to investing in transformative technologies.

The Vision Fund alone generated around $20 billion in gains in the final quarter of the year, with nearly the entire increase attributable to OpenAI. While other holdings such as Coupang, DiDi Global, and Klarna dragged on returns, the OpenAI position more than compensated, delivering $45 billion in gains for the full year.

SoftBank has already deployed more than $30 billion into OpenAI and has committed to a total of over $60 billion, which would secure it roughly 13% ownership. In March, OpenAI completed a major funding round co-led by SoftBank that valued the company at an eye-watering $852 billion, even as it faces stiff competition from Google, Anthropic, xAI, and others racing to dominate generative AI.

This outcome reflects Masayoshi Son’s long-standing philosophy of making outsized bets on what he sees as once-in-a-generation opportunities. From his early Alibaba investment to the Vision Fund era, Son has consistently pursued massive scale in technology themes he believes will reshape the global economy.

OpenAI now sits at the absolute center of that strategy, with SoftBank also investing across AI infrastructure, chips, robotics, and related technologies.

However, the heavy concentration has raised clear concerns. In March, S&P Global Ratings shifted its outlook on SoftBank from “stable” to “negative,” warning that the additional massive commitment to OpenAI could weaken the company’s asset liquidity, portfolio quality, and financial flexibility. The agency highlighted risks tied to SoftBank’s elevated debt load should the AI boom encounter any slowdown or valuation reset.

To help finance its OpenAI ambitions, SoftBank has been systematically selling down stakes in mature holdings, including T-Mobile and Nvidia. These disposals contributed 218.1 billion yen ($1.4 billion) in gains for the year. Yet, when stripping out foreign exchange effects and other costs, the company recorded a 472.1 billion yen investment loss outside the Vision Fund, highlighting the mixed performance across its broader portfolio.

CFO Yoshimitsu Goto emphasized financial discipline during the earnings call, pointing to SoftBank’s solid 3.5 trillion yen cash buffer — sufficient to cover more than two years of bond redemptions. This liquidity provides a meaningful cushion as the company continues its aggressive AI deployment.

At the overall group level, SoftBank posted a strong net profit of 5 trillion yen for the year, supported by both the Vision Fund’s exceptional performance and resilient results from its core domestic telecommunications business.

The results paint a classic high-risk, high-reward playbook. SoftBank has captured enormous paper gains from the AI surge and positioned itself as one of the most influential corporate investors in the sector. The heavy bet on a single private company, however promising, creates significant volatility and concentration risk that traditional investors and rating agencies view warily.

OpenAI’s rapid valuation climb has validated SoftBank’s thesis in the near term, but questions remain about sustainability. The company still burns substantial cash on compute and talent, operates in a hyper-competitive environment, and faces ongoing regulatory and geopolitical scrutiny around AI development.

Against that backdrop, analysts believe that SoftBank’s success will depend on its ability to balance this concentrated AI exposure with portfolio diversification, prudent debt management, and continued strength in its telecom operations. While the Vision Fund’s historic gains provide breathing room, they also raise the bar for future performance.

In many ways, SoftBank’s latest results encapsulate the current era of technology investing: extraordinary rewards for those who back the right winners early, coupled with elevated risks when bets become oversized.