CNBC's Inside India newsletter: Why an India-U.K. trade deal does not make U.S.-India agreement any easier
Caught between protecting favorable terms in its deal with the U.K. and bargaining for more concessions with the U.S., the Indian government has so far responded cautiously, stating it was "studying its implications.
Trump's move also marks a sharp reversal from the optimistic tone of recent negotiations with the White House.
When I met with Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal just last week, he told me that talks were "progressing extremely well" and that he was confident India would secure a "preferential tariff compared to our peers and our competitors."
The acrimony with Washington, though, is a world away from the positive mood surrounding the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement concluded with the U.K. earlier this month.
The deal is projected to boost Britain's GDP by £4.8 billion annually and increase bilateral trade by £25.5 billion in the long run, according to the U.K. government.
It could also add £2.5 billion in additional revenues to British government coffers by the end of the day, according to economists at Deutsche Bank.
The deal is reciprocal, meaning the U.K. will eliminate tariffs on 99% of all Indian goods, up from about 73% currently, making the effective tariff rate for Indian exporters close to zero, according to the team led by Sajjid Chinoy, JPMorgan's chief India economist.
The tariff on Scotch whisky, a major U.K. export, will be cut from a staggering 150% to 75% on the first day of the agreement and will be phased down to 40% over the next decade. Similarly, tariffs on U.K. autos, which can be as high as 110%, will be reduced to 10% under a new quota system.
"I think it is much more than a trade deal," said Keshav Murugesh, chair of the Confederation of Indian Industry UK India Business Forum and CEO of WNS. "It's a proper strategic partnership for the future now."
Despite the comprehensive nature of the agreement, the final deal does not include an exemption for India from the U.K.'s carbon tax, which is set to begin in 2027.
Goyal said India would oppose any such measures, which he characterized as "non-tariff barriers."
"India will continue to explore every option that's available to us under the World Trade Organisation to stop such measures from hurting trade between the two countries," Goyal said. "We deserve the right to take appropriate actions under international law. "
The two nations also did not reach an agreement on a new investment treaty as part of the trade deal.
India exited its previous investment treaty with the U.K. and several other countries in 2017.
Goyal downplayed the significance of its absence, suggesting that foreign direct investment into India has "only grown by leaps and bounds" despite the lack of such investor protection guarantees.
Crucially, India also did not permit tariff-free access for the U.K.'s diary and agricultural products.
Nearly half of India's population is involved in agriculture, and government views them as a sensitive voting bloc.
"We are always very sensitive to the interests of our farmers, the interests of our [Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises], and will ensure that our areas of concern are well protected," Goyal said. [vowed feels a bit strong]
Here, it appears, India's willingness to open its markets has hit its limits, as U.S. President Donald Trump's fevered posts on Truth Social indicate.
India is challenged by the complexity of the World Trade Organisation's "Most Favored Nation" principle. The MFN clause requires that any tariff reduction offered to one country in a bilateral negotiation must be extended to all other WTO members.
If India were to concede to U.S. demands for lower tariffs on sensitive products like agriculture, it would likely be obligated to offer those same terms to competitors like the United Kingdom and European Union, potentially triggering a wider, albeit unintentional, multilateral trade liberalization.
The outcome of negotiations with the U.S. will be a defining test for India's officials.
"I think people trust India. People enjoy working in India. India is where the action is. India is the fastest-growing large economy in the world today," Goyal added.
For now, though, action is centered on getting a deal over the line with the United States.
Sakshi Gupta, principal economist at HDFC Bank, said that while government spending and support for infrastructure and capital goods remain strong, consumption growth in India is lagging.
Abhinav Bharti, head of India equity capital markets at JPMorgan, said that capital raising in IPOs usually takes a "breather" when there's extreme volatility in the secondary markets.
Anubhuti Sahay, head of India economics research at Standard Chartered Bank, said India can absorb the cost of shifting from Russian to U.S. crude oil if sanctions hit.
U.S. President Donald Trump announces 25% tariffs on India. In addition to that levy, India will also have to pay a "penalty" for its trade policies, which Trump sees as unfair, and for buying military equipment and energy from Russia, the president announced Wednesday.
India outstrips China in smartphone exports to the U.S. According to data from research firm Canalys, 44% of U.S. smartphones imported during the second quarter were assembled in India, higher than the 25% from China.
Chinese nationals can get Indian visas again. New Delhi resumed issuing tourist visas to Chinese citizens on July 24. It marks a de-escalation in tensions between the two countries, which traded blows in June 2020 over their disputed Himalayan border, according to Reuters.Indian stocks have lost steam this month with the the Nifty 50 index down 3% for the month. The index has risen 4.7% this year.
The benchmark 10-year Indian government bond yield has ticked up slightly to 6.35% mark, flat from last week.
August 1: Gold jewelry manufacturer Shanti Gold International IPO, HSBC Manufacturing PMI in July
August 5: Security and surveillance firm Aditya Infotech and non-bank finance company Laxmi India Finance IPOs, HSBC Services PMI in July
August 6: Reserve Bank of India interest rate decision, pre-engineered building firm M & B Engineering, real estate company Sri Lotus Developers and Realty, and securities depository National Securities Depository IPOs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
8 minutes ago
- CNN
A viable Palestinian state remains far off, despite growing international clamor
First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada. Three of the world's most powerful Western nations have added their economic and geopolitical clout to calls for a Palestinian state, an idea already endorsed by more than 140 other countries. The moves have many motives, from a sense of frustration with Israel, to domestic pressure, to outrage over the images of starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, Palestinians have welcomed the announcements as a boost for their cause. The Israeli government has rejected the calls, describing them as tantamount to rewarding terrorism. US President Donald Trump meanwhile seems increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over the starvation in Gaza that the Israeli leader denies, but has disturbed Trump. Trump wants regional peace, as well as the accolades – namely a Nobel Peace Prize – for making it happen. He wants Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, expanding the Abraham Accords he cemented between Israel and several other Arab states during his first term. But Riyadh has been firm that this cannot happen without an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. But the latest moves by US allies France, Britain and Canada – while in many ways largely symbolic – have left Washington increasingly isolated over its backing for Israel. Palestinian statehood could help bring an end to a war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza since Hamas's brutal October 7 attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel almost two years ago, as well as bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. But one of the toughest challenges is imagining what it looks like, because a modern Palestinian state has never existed before. When Israel was founded in the aftermath of World War II it quickly gained international recognition. That same period, for Palestinians, is remembered as al-Naqba, or 'the catastrophe' – the moment when hundreds of thousands of people fled or were forced from their homes. Since then, Israel has expanded, most significantly during the 'Six Day War' of 1967, when Israel turned the tables on a coalition of Arab states and gained East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian territory has meanwhile only shrunk and splintered. The closest to what a future Palestinian state may look like was hashed out in a peace process in the 1990s which came to be known as the Oslo Accords. Roughly speaking, the Palestinian state envisaged in Oslo, agreed to by both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, would be based on Israel's 1967 borders. The broad outline of Oslo was to have some land trades, a little bit given in one place for the removal of an Israeli settlement, in a negotiated process. The historic handshake on the White House lawn by Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hosted by then-US president Bill Clinton remains one of the triumphs of modern diplomacy. Rabin's assassination by a far-right fanatic in 1995 robbed Israel of its peacemaker leader. And while the framework of Oslo lived on in negotiations and academia, there is little initiative now. What was on offer back then is no longer realistic. In recent years, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded massively, often with the encouragement of the Israeli government, threatening the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state in the region. Then there is the question of who would govern a future Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is distrusted by many Palestinians who view it as weak or corrupt. Even without all these complications, Netanyahu won't accept a Palestinian state, which he has recently claimed would be 'a launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Some members of his cabinet are far more hard-line, not only refusing to countenance an independent state but wanting to annex the territory. These ministers propping up Netanyahu's government have said they would starve Palestinians in Gaza rather than feed them, and would collapse the coalition if he so much as suggested giving in to the growing international pressure on Israel. Netanyahu has shown no intention of backing down, and will wear whatever France, the UK, and any others force on him as a badge of honor. Without a partner in the Israeli government, recognition of a Palestinian state will fall flat, and could even entrench Netanyahu further. It would be a big price to pay if the outcome were Israel making the possibility of a Palestinian state all the more distant. But at the same time, with a growing number of angry ex-partners in the international community who are likely to increase their pressure on Trump to shift his position, it is Israel that may find itself disadvantaged, however strongly it protests.
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
A viable Palestinian state remains far off, despite growing international clamor
The Middle East Israel-Hamas war UK Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada. Three of the world's most powerful Western nations have added their economic and geopolitical clout to calls for a Palestinian state, an idea already endorsed by more than 140 other countries. The moves have many motives, from a sense of frustration with Israel, to domestic pressure, to outrage over the images of starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, Palestinians have welcomed the announcements as a boost for their cause. The Israeli government has rejected the calls, describing them as tantamount to rewarding terrorism. US President Donald Trump meanwhile seems increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over the starvation in Gaza that the Israeli leader denies, but has disturbed Trump. Trump wants regional peace, as well as the accolades – namely a Nobel Peace Prize – for making it happen. He wants Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, expanding the Abraham Accords he cemented between Israel and several other Arab states during his first term. But Riyadh has been firm that this cannot happen without an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. But the latest moves by US allies France, Britain and Canada – while in many ways largely symbolic – have left Washington increasingly isolated over its backing for Israel. Palestinian statehood could help bring an end to a war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza since Hamas's brutal October 7 attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel almost two years ago, as well as bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. But one of the toughest challenges is imagining what it looks like, because a modern Palestinian state has never existed before. When Israel was founded in the aftermath of World War II it quickly gained international recognition. That same period, for Palestinians, is remembered as al-Naqba, or 'the catastrophe' – the moment when hundreds of thousands of people fled or were forced from their homes. Since then, Israel has expanded, most significantly during the 'Six Day War' of 1967, when Israel turned the tables on a coalition of Arab states and gained East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian territory has meanwhile only shrunk and splintered. The closest to what a future Palestinian state may look like was hashed out in a peace process in the 1990s which came to be known as the Oslo Accords. Roughly speaking, the Palestinian state envisaged in Oslo, agreed to by both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, would be based on Israel's 1967 borders. The broad outline of Oslo was to have some land trades, a little bit given in one place for the removal of an Israeli settlement, in a negotiated process. The historic handshake on the White House lawn by Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hosted by then-US president Bill Clinton remains one of the triumphs of modern diplomacy. Rabin's assassination by a far-right fanatic in 1995 robbed Israel of its peacemaker leader. And while the framework of Oslo lived on in negotiations and academia, there is little initiative now. What was on offer back then is no longer realistic. In recent years, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded massively, often with the encouragement of the Israeli government, threatening the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state in the region. Then there is the question of who would govern a future Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is distrusted by many Palestinians who view it as weak or corrupt. Even without all these complications, Netanyahu won't accept a Palestinian state, which he has recently claimed would be 'a launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Some members of his cabinet are far more hard-line, not only refusing to countenance an independent state but wanting to annex the territory. These ministers propping up Netanyahu's government have said they would starve Palestinians in Gaza rather than feed them, and would collapse the coalition if he so much as suggested giving in to the growing international pressure on Israel. Netanyahu has shown no intention of backing down, and will wear whatever France, the UK, and any others force on him as a badge of honor. Without a partner in the Israeli government, recognition of a Palestinian state will fall flat, and could even entrench Netanyahu further. It would be a big price to pay if the outcome were Israel making the possibility of a Palestinian state all the more distant. But at the same time, with a growing number of angry ex-partners in the international community who are likely to increase their pressure on Trump to shift his position, it is Israel that may find itself disadvantaged, however strongly it protests.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Did the Fed just royally screw up?
Federal agencies Job market EconomyFacebookTweetLink Follow It took only a few days for the Federal Reserve's latest decision on interest rates to age like milk. The central bank on Wednesday said it was holding borrowing costs steady yet again, extending a wait-and-see pattern that began in January. That same day, Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters that a 'solid' labor market means central bankers still have the luxury of waiting to see how President Donald Trump's tariffs affect prices before resuming rate cuts that could help boost jobs but could also reignite inflation. Just two days later, it turned out that the job market is on shakier ground than Powell had suggested. It may take a bit more time to know if that's really the case. But the Fed may walk away with egg on its face. The Fed did not respond to a request for comment. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, well below the threshold of monthly job growth necessary to keep up with population growth. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%. And the monthly report was even worse than it seems: The Labor Department also massively revised downward the job gains for the prior two months. It's now clear that job growth has been anemic, based on the newly revised data: The average pace of monthly job growth from May through July was the weakest than any other three-month period since 2009, outside of the pandemic recession in 2020. 'Powell is going to regret holding rates steady this week,' Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, said in commentary issued Friday. But not everyone at the Fed shared Powell's view on the labor market. The Fed's latest decision generated pushback from within like it hasn't seen in decades. Fed Governor Christopher Waller and Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman cast dissenting votes, marking the first time that more than one Fed governor has done so since 1993. In statements issued Friday, both officials pointed to signs of weakness in labor market as a major reason why they dissented, while downplaying the potential effects of Trump's tariffs on prices. The Fed is tasked by Congress to address both high inflation and a weakening labor market. 'The labor market has become less dynamic and shows increasing signs of fragility,' Bowman wrote, adding that just few industries have propelled job growth this year, which remained the case in July, according to the latest data. Still, it may be too soon to conclude that the Fed has royally screwed up. 'It was a disappointing report to be sure, but when I look at the data, we try not to make too much out of any one individual report,' Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack told Bloomberg on Friday after the July jobs report was released. 'I feel confident with the decision we made earlier this week.' Last year, after the unemployment rate climbed quickly in a short period of time and there were similar calls that the central bank was too late to lower rates, the Fed stepped in with a bold, half-point rate cut to stave off any further weakening. By the end of last year, it turned out that the labor market wasn't falling off a cliff: In December, employers added a massive 323,000 jobs as the unemployment rate edged down from the prior month to 4.1%.
