&w=3840&q=100)
How is the India-US trade deal shaping up?
President Donald Trump shakes hands with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Oval Office of the White House. AP
US President Donald Trump has expressed optimism about a possible bilateral trade deal (BTA) with India.
Though there are reports that the trade deal might be finalised this week, the two sides are said to be apart on key issues including agriculture.
Trump, who had initially imposed reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries including a 26 per cent levy on India on April 2, had issued a 90day-pause in order to allow countries to negotiate.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
But with the July 9 deadline is drawing nearer and nearer, India and the US have still not reached a deal.
But what did Trump say? How is the India-US trade deal shipping up?
Let's take a closer look:
What Trump said
First let's take a brief look at what Trump said.
Trump said he thinks the United States and India would reach a bilateral trade agreement.
'I think we are going to have a deal with India. And that is going to be a different kind of a deal. It is going to be a deal where we are able to go in and compete. Right now, India does not accept anybody in. I think India is going to do that, and if they do that, we are going to have a deal for much less tariffs,' Trump said.
President Donald Trump said a deal could be imminent. AP
Trump's remarks came after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday said that India and the US were 'very close' on a deal.
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Monday had expressed optimism about a deal being concluded.
'We are in the middle — hopefully more than the middle — of a very intricate trade negotiation,' Jaishankar said. 'Obviously, my hope would be that we bring it to a successful conclusion. I cannot guarantee it, because there's another party to that discussion.'
Trump in June said the deal with India was imminent.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'We have one coming up, maybe with India. A very big one. Where we're going to open up India,' Trump said.
'We're not going to make deals with everybody. Some, we are just going to send them a letter, say thank you very much… My people don't want to do it that way. They want to do some of it, but they want to make more deals than I would do', he added.
Now, let's take a look at what we know about the negotiations.
How are negotiations going?
The Indian delegation led by chief negotiator Rajesh Aggarwal had landed in the United States on Friday.
The team, which is negotiating with US officials including those from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), has now extended its stay in Washington.
Both teams, mindful of the upcoming deadline set by Trump, were said to be in fierce negotiations over the BTA.
However, key sticking points remain.
New Delhi is said to be adamant about carving out protections for its dairy and agriculture industry.
This is out of consideration for the millions of farmers working on small landholdings across the country. This can also be both a politically and economically sensitive issue to navigate.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India is said to be adamant about protecting its farmers. PTI
India, for those not in the know, has never opened up its dairy sector to a foreign competitor.
India is the biggest producer of milk in the world.
Experts also say any reduction in tariffs on dairy and agriculture could undermine India's Minimum Support Price (MSP) system – which could be devastating to farmers.
However, the US negotiators seem insistent about opening up a new market for its agricultural products including genetically modified crops, apples, reducing tariffs on skimmed milk powder and poultry products.
India has been reluctant to allow genetically modified crops to be sold out of health concerns.
India has banned the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops.
Washington, which is looking to bring down its $54 billion trade deficit with New Delhi, wants to export maize, soya bean, cotton and corn to India.
India has told negotiators reducing tariffs on skimmed milk powder and poultry would hurt its small farmers.
Indian officials have described the dairy sector as a 'red line' that cannot be crossed.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
They earlier insisted that India's national interest will come first in any deal.
The US also wants large-scale commitments from India to buy Boeing aircraft, choppers and nuclear reactors.
Washington may also pursue trying to get India to relax its FDI rules – which would benefit US behemoths such as Amazon and Walmart.
Officials say that India can likely bring down tariffs for ethanol, almonds, apples, raisins, avocados, olive oil, spirits and wines.
New Delhi, on the other hand, wants the United States to reduce levies on auto imports and Indian steel.
India also wants preferential access for its labour-intensive exports, such as textiles and garments, gems and jewellery, leather goods, and agricultural products like shrimp, oilseeds, grapes, and bananas.
The US wants India to open up its agriculture, dairy, aviation and energy sectors, while New Delhi is looking for Washington to cut tariffs on steel and auto parts
Officials say that these will not likely hurt those selling these products domestically in the US.
Though the government think tank Niti Aayog had in a working paper in May suggested that India can relax tariffs on 'soybean oil imports', that paper has now been taken offline – which raises many questions.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India remains the world's biggest importer of edible oil.
Officials say that reducing tariffs on maize and soybeans would hurt Indian small farmers.
Similarly, bringing down tariffs on maize would result in the production becoming unfeasible for local farmers.
If talks don't pan out, India will likely face a 10 per cent across the board levy rather than the 26 per cent tariff Trump imposed.
But experts say a 'limited trade pact', like the one the US and UK announced on May 8, is likely.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump in February had agreed to increase bilateral trade, which was at $262 billion in 2024, to $500 billion by 2030.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding
In an era of relentless media cycles and performative politics, foreign policy is increasingly becoming a battleground for domestic posturing. The danger lies not just in what is said, but in how and why it's said. Moral absolutism is deployed selectively, outrage is amplified when convenient, and silence is deafening when facts challenge the preferred narrative. The framing of India's foreign policy as either morally courageous or morally bankrupt ignores diplomacy's layered complexities. Nations do not operate in binaries. They navigate shades of grey, often balancing principle with pragmatism. To cast India's foreign policy as a betrayal of historical moral commitments is not only reductionist, it is deeply dishonest. Take the Hamas attack on Israel — one of the most horrific terrorist acts in recent memory. For India — a victim of terrorism — moral clarity on such acts is not optional; it is foundational. To hesitate in condemning such violence is not intellectual sophistication — it is moral evasiveness. India rightly condemned this attack as terrorism. This was not a partisan statement. It was a reflection of India's consistent stance against terror. At the same time, it made clear its support for the Palestinian people — urging humanitarian access to Gaza, calling for the release of hostages, and providing over 65 tonnes of aid. India has donated over $65 million for Palestine's development in recent years and continues to fund infrastructure and education projects in the West Bank. Yet critics accuse it of abandoning its moral compass. On what basis? That it refused to take a simplistic, one-sided view of a multidimensional conflict? Or that it chose to engage both sides while prioritising the safety of Indian citizens and regional stability? Let us not forget: Diplomacy is not Twitter. It is not built for viral outrage. It is about safeguarding interests while promoting peace. Condemning terrorism while extending humanitarian support is not a contradiction — it is coherence. What often passes for foreign policy critique today seems a deliberate misreading of strategic imperatives. This becomes glaring when examining how critics invoke Iran, Israel, and the larger West Asian theatre. For example, the portrayal of Iran as an innocent, misunderstood actor wilfully ignores the concerns over its nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, Iran now holds over 400 kg of 60 per cent-enriched uranium — dangerously close to weapons-grade. Multiple inspections have found uranium traces at undeclared sites, and Iran continues to block full transparency. Yet, such critical developments are conveniently omitted. This is not nuance; it is misdirection. It seeks to equate Iran's opaque nuclear manoeuvres with Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities — a comparison that collapses under scrutiny. Israel has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor has it been found in violation of IAEA safeguards. Iran, by contrast, is a signatory and repeatedly non-compliant. To conflate the two is agenda-driven. Some romanticise India-Iran ties by citing Tehran's support for India at the 1994 UN Human Rights Commission vote on Kashmir. But this overlooks the evolving nature of Iran's foreign policy. Iran is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation — a bloc that routinely criticises India on Kashmir. In recent years, Tehran has echoed calls for 'restoration of rights' in J&K, aligning with positions India considers deeply problematic. Even the strategic relevance of the Chabahar Port is twisted into a narrative of Iranian altruism. The port's development depended heavily on India's backchannel diplomacy with the US, which provided a sanctions waiver. India's relationship with Iran has been cautious and transactional, shaped by oil trade, connectivity goals, and regional deterrence, not emotional solidarity. When it comes to Israel, let us not forget that full diplomatic ties were established not by today's government but under former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao. That decision reflected strategic foresight. Since then, ties have deepened. To now paint this trajectory as a betrayal of India's historical commitments is a politically convenient case of forgetting one's own legacy. India's nuanced response to the Iran-Israel escalation is another case in point. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a firm, balanced statement urging de-escalation, emphasising dialogue and diplomacy, and reiterating concern for Indians in both countries. Emergency protocols were activated to ensure the safety of thousands in the region. Critics labelled this approach muted. But what was the alternative? Publicly taking sides in a conflict — one with nuclear implications, energy security risks, and the diaspora's safety at stake? Is that responsible statecraft or reckless signalling? India's foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by geography, history, and hard power realities. Surrounded by two nuclear adversaries, locked in a matrix of regional alliances and dependencies, India cannot afford to grandstand. It must calculate every move with precision. Pragmatism is not a betrayal of principle — it is about preservation in a hostile world. The danger today is not India's diplomatic caution, it is the trend of a partisan foreign policy critique. Turning complex international issues into tools for domestic political attack is hazardous. It undermines national unity on external affairs, weakens credibility abroad, and sends conflicting signals. Foreign policy is not the arena for point-scoring. It demands strategic consistency, institutional memory, and national coherence. When every international issue is filtered through the lens of electoral calculations or ideological grievances, we do not get a better foreign policy — we get a fragmented one. What India needs today is clarity without chaos, values without vanity, and vision without vendetta. The world is not waiting for India to moralise. It is watching to see if India can lead — with balance, wisdom, and strategic resolve. The writer is a policy analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
After Operation Sindoor, don't delay the stocktaking
While Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir's oration at the Pakistan Naval Academy on June 28 has drawn considerable media focus, there is a need to assess how much attention India should pay to his utterances. The rabble-rousing tone and toxic India-baiting content of his speech, ill-befitting the occasion — a navy passing-out parade — was a clear sign of insecurity in the face of widespread public criticism of the Pakistan army in general and his promotion in particular. Notwithstanding the banality of his words, we must recognise that since Field Marshals do not retire, Munir, if he so chooses, will be around for a long time — either as Army Chief or as political puppet master. By harping on Hindu-Muslim schisms and framing India as an 'existential threat' to its perpetual 'victim', Pakistan, Munir seeks to gain favour with the public and cement a political niche for himself, sidelining the civilian regime. Given Munir's continued malevolent presence, India must steel itself to face escalating tensions. In all likelihood, it was his inflammatory rhetoric that triggered Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and its terror proxies to plan and launch the Pahalgam strike. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his speech on May 12, unequivocally spelt out four core principles that would govern India's future policy against terrorism. Optimists amongst us are hopeful that this declaration of India's 'red lines' by the PM will cause the Pakistan 'deep state' to pause and perhaps mend its ways. Sceptics, however, believe that it is only a matter of time before the ISI initiates yet another terror strike on India. In these circumstances, no time must be lost in analysing threadbare Operation Sindoor and disseminating the lessons learnt — at the strategic, operational and tactical levels — before we are faced with a similar crisis once again. In this context, we have the admirable precedent of the Vajpayee government, which constituted the Kargil Review Committee on July 29, 1999 — a mere three days after the cessation of hostilities. The urgency here is even more marked since this '90-hour war' saw an unimaginable leap in the level of technologies employed in combat and the dizzying pace of kinetic action. While India asserted its success in achieving its objectives of targeting terrorist infrastructure and demonstrating a markedly bolder and more resolute deterrence strategy, there are several aspects that require urgent review and analysis. First, we were found wanting in strategic communication and narrative-building. While the conflict generated unprecedented levels of hyperbolic distortion and disinformation from media on both sides, India's lag in official narrative-building allowed Pakistan to steal a significant march. Compared to Pakistan's proactive media outreach and timely official briefings, Indian briefings were often reactive, and failed to put across, our notable military successes. Second, the issue of aircraft losses suffered by India was ineptly handled across the board. Since aircraft attrition is an inevitable consequence in combat, there was little to be gained by concealing or acting coy about Indian Air Force (IAF) losses. The exaggerated Pakistani claims could not be logically countered by the dribbles of information coming first from the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore and then from a seminar in Indonesia. A forthright admission, followed by an account of the next day's devastating Indian response, which claimed six Pakistan Air Force (PAF) fighters and two other aircraft, would have boosted the credibility of our narrative. Third, the extensive employment of 'beyond visual range' or BVR air-to-air missiles and advanced airborne radars in this conflict has proved a major game-changer in air combat. This demands urgent in-depth study and analysis. The aerial engagements on the night of May 7/8 between the two South Asian air forces, involving over 100 aircraft, were unprecedented and have captured the attention of air power analysts worldwide. A comprehensive review of what is being termed, 'the largest BVR air combat in history' during Operation Sindoor is best undertaken by the IAF's esteemed Tactics and Combat Development Establishment, particularly against the backdrop of our past experience of 'aerial ambushes' in Kargil and in the post-Balakot encounters. The lacunae in equipment and intelligence as well as lessons learned and changes required in training, tactics and strategies must be addressed post-haste. Rising above the minutiae of physical conflict, we need to remind our decision-makers that wars, if inevitable, must be waged only to eliminate the casus belli and achieve a stable and enduring peace. This places three responsibilities on the country's political leadership: (a) to lay down, clear aims for which armed action is being initiated; (b) to specify, to the military, the desired 'end-state' to be achieved, before termination of hostilities; and (c) to ensure that adequate resources are provided — in time — for the action contemplated. There is scant authentic information on these aspects in the public domain. The waters have been further muddied by US President Donald Trump's insistent claims of brokering peace. In the face of incessant commentary by Western observers about the risks of nuclear first use in South Asia, it was reassuring to hear from India's CDS about the 'rationality and maturity', displayed by both sides in avoiding escalation to the nuclear threshold. The extensive utilisation of cyber warfare and missiles as well as unmanned vehicles enabled both sides to wage 'non-contact warfare'. This calls for a comprehensive doctrinal re-think about the future of manned combat platforms. Moreover, the sheer intensity of this brief eruption and rapid expenditure of (expensive) munitions should lead to reflection about the status of our 'war wastage reserves', and their replenishment. In essence, the May 2025 conflict served as a stark reminder of the volatile nature of the India-Pakistan relationship and the critical need for robust crisis management mechanisms as well as military preparedness. The intent of Operation Sindoor was 'deterrence by punishment' but as we await its long-term impact, India's national security establishment needs to think long and hard about alternate strategies to address the casus belli. The writer is a former Indian Navy chief and chairman, Chief of Staff Committee
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
INDIA bloc's manifesto to focus on women, quotas
Introducing reservation in private sector jobs, cash for women under the proposed Mai Bahan Samman Yojana, financial assistance to promote self-employment to curb migration, and better healthcare facilities are among the key promises the Opposition INDIA bloc in Bihar is likely to include in its common manifesto for the upcoming assembly elections, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav speaking with media persons after lost in Bhar Assembly by-polls, in Patna, Bihar, India, Saturday,23, 2024. (HT Archive) The INDIA bloc in Bihar – comprising RJD, Congress, VIP, and left parties— is hoping to unseat the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Leaders of INDIA bloc partners, who held a marathon meeting at the state Congress headquarters — Sadaqat Ashram — in Patna over the last two days, broadly arrived at a consensus on the common manifesto for the assembly polls scheduled for October-November this year, a senior functionary of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) said. 'Draft manifesto will be finalised at the next meeting of the manifesto sub-committee, likely around July 15, for submission to the coordination committee of INDIA bloc,' RJD lawmaker Sudhakar Singh, who is also a member of the manifesto sub-committee, said. The sub-panel has prioritised education, employment, healthcare and social welfare sectors in the manifesto to counter the electoral narrative of the chief minister Nitish Kumar-led NDA. A Congress leader said that the alliance partners focused on policies targeting the youth, women, and marginalised communities in the state. Proposals such as a monthly assistance of ₹ 2,500 for every woman, free healthcare coverage up to ₹ 25 lakh, and increasing monthly social security pension to at least ₹ 1,500 were accepted by the alliance partners to be included in the manifesto, the leader, who was part of the discussion, said. The leaders also agreed to demand for introducing reservation in private sector as well as increasing the overall reservation in the state to 65%, a senior RJD leader said, requesting anonymity. Earlier, leader of Opposition in the state assembly and RJD leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in May this year had pitched for reservation in the private sector. 'The private sector, which has been a major beneficiary of public resources, cannot remain insulated from social justice imperatives. Companies have received substantial benefits-land at concessional rates, power subsidies, tax exemptions, infrastructure support, and various financial incentives all funded by taxpayer money,' Yadav said in a letter to PM, dated May 2. 'In return, it is entirely reasonable to expect the private sector to reflect the social composition of our country. The context created by the caste census must be used to have open conversations about inclusivity and diversity in the private sector across organisational hierarchies.' In a bid to woo young voters, the manifesto will focus on expanding educational and job opportunities, addressing Bihar's high unemployment rate, which stood at 7.2% in 2024, according to the Periodic Labour Force Survey, the leader added. RJD's Anwar Pasha and Subodh Mehta, Congress leaders Abhay Dubey and Karuna Sagar, CPI(ML) Liberation's Meena Tiwari, CPI(M) leader Sarvoday Sharma, and VIP's Dinesh Sahni and Nurul Huda, among others, also attended the two-day meeting. After the finalisation of the manifesto, another INDIA bloc functionary said, the coordination committee is likely to work on the joint campaign strategies. Senior JDU leader and MLC Neeraj Kumar said the politics in Bihar hinges on commitment and promise. 'While Nitish Kumar has always fulfilled his commitment to the electors, Mahagathbandhan parties hardly lived up to their promise. In Karnataka, Congress govt has taken women for a ride and so did the Hemant Soren government in Jharkhand. People won't care for the INDIA bloc promises,' added the JDU leader.
