Modi's 'Act East Policy' Requires Him to In Fact 'Act' at Home
Anybody who knows anything about the way politics works in this country would have known that US president Donald Trump's 9 July deadline for a US –India free trade agreement was unrealistic. While Union commerce minister Piyush Goyal and his officials have logged many flying miles travelling between New Delhi and Washington DC, it was only inevitable that in the end Mr. Goyal would say that India does not make trade deals based on deadlines. It would do so only on the basis of the national interest.
While a deal may yet be struck at the eleventh hour and Mr. Goyal's tactics may pay off, it will be a politically risky gamble given that the Monsoon Session of Parliament is just two weeks away. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will find it difficult to commit to a trade deal with a maverick and unpredictable US president without exposing himself to criticism at home.
While President Trump has promised a 'win-win' deal, he is now known to interpret every deal as a win for his 'America First' strategy. However balanced a trade deal might be between India and the US, in the competition between Mr. Trump's 'America First' and Mr. Modi's 'India First', the political Opposition in India would have enough to go to town accusing the Modi government of once again 'surrendering' to President Trump's diktat.
Just as the BJP opposed trade deals signed by the Manmohan Singh government, the Congress and Left parties would oppose whatever deal India strikes with the United States, especially in the present context. The context is important. The Modi government is still pushing back on criticism that it agreed to a ceasefire with Pakistan under pressure from President Trump. It can ill afford to be seen as buckling under pressure on the trade front. The stakes are high.
It is not just the criticism from the political Opposition that would worry the Modi government but, even more so, the criticism from within its own support ranks. Even on trade policy, there are as many protectionist hawks within the Sangh Parivar as there are in the Opposition.
Given the difficulties associated with declaring victory on a trade deal with the United States, the Modi government had no option but to place the trade negotiations on the back burner. There can be no movement forward until the Monsoon Session of Parliament is over.
A larger challenge stares India's trade negotiators in the face. Ever since the early 1990s, when India opted to enter into a multilateral trade agreement, the government has zealously defended the country's status as a developing economy. India signed on to the membership of the World Trade Organisation after being assured that, along with other developing economies, it would receive 'special and differential treatment' (SDT). India remains a protectionist economy by Asian standards.
There was a time, during the tenures of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the Manmohan Singh governments, when India would declare that the objective of its trade policy was to bring India's tariffs down to 'ASEAN levels'. This objective has never been restated by the Narendra Modi government, which has in fact raised tariff barriers across many product lines over the past decade. India's trade partners have been protesting all along, and in President Donald Trump they have found a strong advocate of their grievances.
There is, therefore, a two-fold problem for Prime Minister Modi with respect to trade and tariff policy. On the one hand, he remains under pressure from within the ranks of the Sangh Parivar to stick to a more protectionist stance. There are many reasons put forward to justify this.
On the other hand, the world outside says that if India is indeed in its 'Amrit Kaal' and is the world's fourth or third largest economy and on its way to becoming 'Viksit Bharat' and is a 'rising power', a 'leading power', and so on and so forth, then why behave like a low-middle-income developing economy seeking 'special and differential' treatment?
The argument for protecting the agrarian economy and the interests of farmers stands on an altogether different foundation. The highly developed economies of Europe and Japan have defended trade protectionism in agriculture on cultural, social and political grounds. The protection of farmers and the farming economy and the cultivation of local varieties of various products is a legitimate policy objective.
India stands on firm ground in rejecting an open-ended policy of trade liberalisation in agriculture. If the United States continues to insist on this front, the Modi government will have no option but to reject and resist all pressure. Neither India nor Japan can agree to trade liberalisation in farm produce without risking a domestic political backlash. The protectionist argument in the case of manufactured goods is, however, much weaker.
A policy option that can be pursued would be for the government to come out with a timetable for trade liberalisation and tariff reduction, setting firm dates for sectors, and gradually allowing the rupee to depreciate to partly compensate for tariff cuts. This would be in tandem with the earlier and oft-repeated promise of bringing Indian tariffs 'down to ASEAN levels'. This is a long-stated goal and is one that should be implemented.
Rather than berate the ASEAN countries and call them the 'B-team' of China, as Mr Goyal has ill-advisedly done, it is time India caught up with ASEAN on the trade and manufacturing fronts. It may be recalled that India's trade and industrial policy liberalisation began in the early 1990s inspired by the experience of ASEAN.
It was after his visit to Malaysia that the then prime minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh tasked an official in the Prime Minister's Office, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, to come up with a roadmap that would enable India to catch up with Malaysia. Mr Ahluwalia's 'M Paper' was the result and formed the basis of Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao's trade and industrial policy. The time has come again for India to 'catch up' with East and Southeast Asia as far as trade and industrial policies are concerned. Mr Modi's 'Act East Policy' requires him to in fact act at home.
This article was originally published in Deccan Chronicle. It has been lightly edited for style.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
90-day pause on Trump tariffs set to expire soon. Can renewed trade barriers complicate US Fed's rate cut path?
US Fed Rate Cut: US President Donald Trump's tariff policies have added a layer of complexity to the Federal Reserve's rate-cut deliberations, as the US central bank remains concerned about potential inflationary fallout from higher tariffs. Now, ahead of the expiry of the 90-day pause on tariffs this week on July 9, Trump said on Sunday that the US is close to finalising several trade agreements in the coming days and will notify other countries of higher tariff rates by July 9. Trump in April announced a 10% base tariff on most countries and higher "reciprocal" rates of up to 50%. Trump also threatened an extra 10% tariff on countries aligning themselves with what he called the anti-American policies of the BRICS group of developing nations. While no substantial trade deals are in place yet, the concerns for the economy continue to linger, further impacting the US Fed's rate cut decision. The US Fed Chief Jerome Powell has already communicated that the central bank will 'wait and learn more' about how these tariffs are filtering into higher inflation before they start to focus on interest rates. Other Fed officials also say that the unclear trade policy and the chance that adding or bringing back higher fees could push prices up again means they will be careful and rely on data before cutting rates. Pranay Aggarwal, Director and CEO of Stoxkart said the approaching expiry of the 90-day pause on Trump-era tariffs could reignite trade tensions, especially between major economies like the US and China. "If renewed trade barriers are introduced, we may see a ripple effect on global inflation, supply chains, and investor sentiment. For the US Federal Reserve, this adds another layer of complexity; rising trade-related inflationary pressures could delay or limit the scope of planned rate cuts, as the Fed continues to balance between cooling inflation and supporting growth," Aggarwal added. Palka Arora Chopra, Director, Master Capital Services believes the reimposition of trade barriers by the US, and may further postpone any rate cuts. Delayed rate cuts also don't bode well for emerging markets (EMs) like India, as higher US interest rates curb FII inflows into EMs. In the last policy meeting, the US Fed along expected lines kept the rates unchanged at 4.25-4.5%, while the Fed's dot plot continued to signal two rate cuts for 2025. The dot plot is a chart published by the US Fed that shows the FOMC's future path on interest rates. Last week, data showed US job growth was unexpectedly solid in June, further easing pressure for the Fed to cut rates. Minutes from the US Fed's last meeting due later this week could shed more light on the US central bank's rate cut path. Indian stock market has traded on a backfoot ahead of the tariff pause deadline. On Monday, July 4, both BSE Sensex and NSE Nifty ended with small cuts as investors continued to stay on the sidelines. Analysts believe From an Indian market perspective, such developments often translate into increased volatility. "Additionally, any global uncertainty tends to impact foreign institutional investor (FII) flows, which are a key driver of Indian equity markets. While India remains structurally strong, short-term knee-jerk reactions cannot be ruled out if global trade disruptions escalate," Aggarwal said. Meanwhile, commenting on the impact of a possible US-India trade deal, Chopra said that the larger impact on Indian stock markets hinges upon the outcome of the trade negotiations: a deal would sell well, while failure would certainly have a spillover effect on exporters and general market sentiment. Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Economic Times
6 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump is already making the next Fed chair's job harder
Reuters U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies before a House Financial Services Committee hearing on "The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress," on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump has acknowledged the intense pressure he's laying on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates is, in fact, making it harder for the central bank to do just he may also be sabotaging the person he picks to succeed Jerome Powell, whose term as chair expires next pledging to pick 'somebody that wants to cut rates,' Trump has potentially undermined the next chair's standing even before they're selected. The public and investors will likely question whether the nominee will safeguard the central bank's independence or bow to Trump's demands. 'People will wonder what sort of promises or implicit promises or winks or nods may have gone on in order to get the nomination,' said Jon Faust, a fellow at the Center for Financial Economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former special adviser to Powell. 'I think that's very bad for the next Fed chair. I think that's very bad for the credibility of the Fed.' Trump has pointed to recent tame inflation readings and lower policy rates in other countries in his calls for the Fed to reduce borrowing costs, while maintaining the central bank can raise interest rates should inflation re-accelerate. He's also argued the Fed — which was late to hike interest rates to counter the inflation surge that followed the Covid-19 pandemic — has often waited too long to adjust its policy. In an emailed statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said it was Trump's First Amendment right 'to voice his concern about flawed policymaking, and that includes monetary policy that's holding our country's economic resurgence back.'Powell hasn't responded directly to Trump's badgering. Instead, he has emphasized that policymakers are squarely focused on doing what they judge to be in the best interest of the economy and within their legal mandate.'I have a little more than 10 months left on my term as chair and all I want, and all anybody at the Fed wants, is to deliver an economy that has price stability, maximum employment, financial stability,' Powell said on July 1. Right now, Powell and his colleagues have decided that means holding off on rate cuts. They want more clarity on how Trump's tariffs and other policies will affect inflation and employment. That's stoked Trump's ire, and others in his administration have ramped up the attacks in recent days.'I fully understand that my strong criticism of him makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing, lowering Rates,' Trump said of Powell on social media last LessonsIn recent decades, elected officials and Fed policymakers alike have aimed to insulate monetary policy from political interference. That's a result of painful lessons learned when central bankers yielded to outside Volcker, who became Fed chair in 1979, is remembered for waging a dogged fight to quell an inflation problem that many believe went unchecked because the Fed gave in to pressure from President Richard Nixon. Economic historians credit Volcker with reestablishing the Fed's credibility on price stability and setting the stage for a long period of low lesson, and similar examples from around the globe, have led researchers to broadly agree that economies perform better when central banks set rates independently. 'If you believe that the central bank is going to make decisions that even marginally tilt more toward political pressures, you're going to expect higher inflation, more volatility in the macroeconomy,' said Julia Coronado, founder of research firm MacroPolicy Perspectives. 'All of that has a price in the bond market and in financial markets generally.'Coronado said she expects the next Fed leader to be less invested in the central bank's independence than the last few chairs.'It's not going to be some arsonist that comes in and lights the institution on fire. I think it'll be more incremental, but still meaningful,' she said. 'At the margin, they're going to try to guide that committee to easier policy because that will be the political pressure and it will have some impact.'The CandidatesTrump has said he has three or four people in mind to succeed Powell and his pick will come 'very soon.''If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in. I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates,' he said last the White House spokesman, said the president 'will continue to nominate the most qualified individuals who can best serve the American people.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – who is reportedly among those under consideration – said on June 30 the administration will work on naming a successor over the coming weeks and months. Other candidates said to be in contention include Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor, and a current governor, Christopher Waller. Kevin Hassett, the White House's National Economic Council director, and former World Bank President David Malpass are also said to be in the mix. Bessent, Hassett and Malpass have echoed Trump's view that the Fed should already be cutting rates. Waller, citing recent economic data, has said a rate cut could be appropriate as soon as this month. He has also touted the importance of central bank independence. While in wait-and-see mode for now, most Fed officials still expect the central bank will cut rates at least once this year. And some analysts have noted economic conditions could evolve in a way that makes the rate cuts Trump seeks a less contentious policy choice even before a new chair takes addition, checks on the Fed chief will remain regardless of whom Trump picks. The chair is just one of 19 policymakers on the Federal Open Market Committee, and one of 12 who vote on interest-rate next chair could still be viewed as having credibility if they offer a reasonable intellectual framework for lowering rates, said Derek Tang, an economist at LHMeyer/Monetary Policy Analytics in Washington. He said he'll be watching how investors' expectations for future inflation react once Trump names a pick as an indication of whether markets view the choice as credible.'The candidate has to thread a needle to be pleasing enough to Trump,' Tang said. 'But then at the same time be able to convince the market they're going to stand up for Fed independence and defend the inflation mandate. They have to do both things at once, which is hard.'
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What becomes of Republicans who cross King Donald?
DONALD TRUMP'S One Big Beautiful Bill act (BBB) is a Frankenstein's monster of hand-outs, carve-outs, tax cuts and ideological splurges and purges. Independent analysis suggests it will increase America's deficit , stunt the economy and hit the poorest hardest. A recent poll by YouGov and The Economist found that just over one in three Americans support the bill. Elon Musk, a big Republican donor and a former 'first buddy' of Mr Trump, is so unhappy that he is proposing to create a new political party. Even so, only five Republican members of Congress voted against it—fewer than any budget of Mr Trump's first term. Since becoming president for the first time in 2017, Mr Trump has reshaped the Republican Party in his image. Loyalty comes before all else in the Trump Party: Republicans who cross him could find themselves on the receiving end of a social-media rant or, worse, facing a Trump-endorsed primary challenger. After Thom Tillis (pictured) voted against the BBB , Mr Trump took to Truth Social, his social-media platform, to condemn the senator from North Carolina, calling for a loyalist to run against him. Mr Tillis chose to withdraw from his re-election campaign altogether. His exit is a boon for Democrats who hope to win his seat next year. After combing through 52,792 of the president's social-media posts, The Economist has identified 30 Republican members of Congress whom Mr Trump has publicly scorned or sought to displace since his first inauguration (see chart 1). Of those 30, ten went on to resign or decide not to run for re-election, including Mr Tillis. Nine faced a Trump-endorsed primary opponent. Five are standing for re-election in 2026. The data is reminiscent of the famous epigram 'divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived'. Of course, the parallel to Henry VIII is unfair. Unlike the murderous English monarch, Mr Trump shows clemency. He publicly reconciled with seven of the 30 (although the feud resumed in four cases). The president's ire has been directed at one in 20 Republicans who have served in the past eight years. That this number is not greater can be credited to the fear instilled by six occasions when a candidate endorsed by Mr Trump defeated a Republican incumbent. By this method, he dispatched four of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach him in 2021, along with Representatives Mark Sanford, an early critic, and Bob Good, a hard-right conservative caught on tape implying that Mr Trump was not a 'true conservative'. His endorsement is so valuable that one Republican congressman from Kentucky took to airing ads in south Florida, aimed to reach Mr Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. The president's ability to dislodge unfriendly colleagues is not absolute. Three Republicans have survived a Trump-endorsed challenge. Nancy Mace, a congresswoman from South Carolina, survived by embracing Mr Trump, recanting her previous, mild criticisms. Two of the remaining Republicans who supported Mr Trump's second impeachment—Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Dan Newhouse—defeated primary opponents under voting systems which allow voters to cross party lines. Ranked-choice voting in Alaska and the two-round system in Washington state meant they could draw on support from sympathetic or tactical Democrats and independents. Mr Trump appears to understand the limits of his powers. He has notably avoided feuding with Representative David Valadao of California, and despite calling her 'absolutely atrocious' in 2022 he has been relatively muted about Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Although both of them voted for his impeachment, they also represented constituencies that leaned towards the Democrats (Mr Valadao now represents a more Republican-leaning district). Maine uses ranked-choice voting and California uses a two-round system. Mr Trump's strategic restraint could be to preserve his record. 'I am 42-0 over the last two cycles and never even tried to run up the score,' he said of his endorsements in 2022. For their part, Democrats are happy to enjoy the red-on-red scraps. In 2022, Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, made the controversial decision to use Democratic campaign funds to boost pro-Trump Republicans. Though arguably corrosive for democracy, in a narrow sense the gamble paid off. In three of the six races where Mr Trump unseated his critics, the Republican replacements went on to lose the general election. Be careful what you wish for Republicans in competitive districts have to weigh the risks of crossing Mr Trump against the risks of being too closely associated with him as voters' dissatisfaction rises. Mr Trump's loyal base, who vote in Republican primaries, are pitted against moderate general-election voters. This dynamic is a gift for the Democrats, who have a narrow path to regaining the Senate in next year's midterm elections (see chart 2). In North Carolina, Mr Tillis will probably be replaced by a less popular Republican nominee. In Texas, the state's scandal-plagued hard-right attorney-general leads primary polls by double digits, taking advantage of the president's attacks on the incumbent senator, 'hopeless' John Cornyn (to use Mr Trump's epithet). The fracas substantially improves Democrats' chances of winning the two states, which are key to their Senate prospects. Mr Trump has made himself inextricable from the Republican Party. This gives him a lot of power. But from a tactical point of view, he can still be a liability for his party. What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald- What-becomes-of-Republicans-who-cross-King-Donald-
