India records more than 6% annual growth
India's national statistics office said March-quarter growth was helped by a surging construction sector. (AP pic)
MUMBAI : India's economy grew by 6.5% in the fiscal year that ended in March, official data showed today, among the world's top performers but still sluggish compared with its recent track record.
The rise in gross domestic product (GDP) was well below the 9.2% recorded in the previous financial year.
The world's most populous nation grappled with a weaker manufacturing sector, tight monetary policy and muted urban consumer sentiment for most of the past year.
While the economy has rebounded over the past two quarters, helped in part by strong agricultural output, US President Donald Trump's tariff blitz poses risks to a sustained recovery.
New Delhi, which was slapped with 26% so-called reciprocal tariffs, is currently negotiating a trade deal with Washington that it hopes will spare it the worst of Trump's trade push.
Analysts believe the annual growth figures, along with cooling inflation data, will convince India's central bank to continue its interest rate easing cycle at its review meeting next week.
The GDP figures released today were a little above analyst expectations of 6.3% but matched the government's own projections of 6.5% year-on-year growth.
The data for the January-March quarter was brighter, with GDP growing 7.4% year-on-year – the fastest this fiscal year and beating analyst estimates of 6.8% growth.
The national statistics office said in a media release that growth in the March quarter was helped by a surging construction sector.
Nearing Japan
AdChoices
ADVERTISING
While India is still the fastest-growing major economy, the 2024-2025 fiscal year growth figures remain below the 8% pace that experts say New Delhi needs to create enough well-paying jobs and generate economic prosperity.
The slowdown in economic activity over the past year pushed Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government into delivering US$12 billion in income tax cuts this year, a move aimed at putting more money in the hands of millions of consumers.
The Reserve Bank of India also cut interest rates in February for the first time in nearly five years and delivered another reduction in April.
More recently, public debate over the country's economic ascent was triggered after a government official claimed India had surpassed Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy.
Projections by the International Monetary Fund, however, indicate that the switch will not happen until the end of this year.
The claim nevertheless prompted swift self-praise from bosses of Indian companies and ruling party lawmakers.
Critics on social media responded by noting that the milestone, whenever it happened, would be largely symbolic because India's current per capita GDP is still a fraction of Japan's.
Experts also warned that the timeline for India beating out Japan could be delayed by fluctuations in exchange rates.
'Our forecasts suggest that India will overtake Japan by the middle of 2026,' Shilan Shah of Capital Economics said in a note this week.
'But the big picture is that India was always going to overtake Japan – and also Germany – given its positive demographics and scope for continued productivity gains,' Shah said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Global universities luring US-bound students amid Trump crackdown
UNIVERSITIES around the world are seeking to offer refuge to students impacted by United States President Donald Trump's crackdown on academic institutions, targeting top talent and a slice of the billions of dollars in academic revenue in the US. Osaka University, one of the top ranked in Japan, is offering tuition fee waivers, research grants and help with travel arrangements to students and researchers at US institutions that want to transfer. Japan's Kyoto University and Tokyo University are also considering similar schemes, while Hong Kong has instructed its universities to attract top talent from the US. China's Xi'an Jiaotong University has appealed for students at Harvard, singled out in Trump's crackdown, promising "streamlined" admissions and "comprehensive" support. Trump's administration has enacted massive funding cuts for academic research, curbed visas for foreign students, especially those from China, and plans to hike taxes on elite schools. Trump alleges top US universities are cradles of anti-American movements. In a dramatic escalation, his administration last week revoked Harvard's ability to enrol foreign students, a move later blocked by a federal judge. Masaru Ishii, dean of the graduate school of medicine at Osaka University, described the impact on US universities as "a loss for all of humanity". Japan aims to ramp up its number of foreign students to 400,000 over the next decade, from around 337,000 now. Jessica Turner, CEO of Quac-quarelli Symonds, a London-based analytics firm that ranks universities globally, said other leading universities around the world were trying to attract students unsure of going to the US. Germany, France and Ireland are attractive alternatives in Europe, she said, while in the Asia-Pacific, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, and mainland China are rising in profile. Chinese students have been particularly targeted in Trump's crackdown, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday pledging to "aggressively" crack down on their visas. More than 275,000 Chinese students are enrolled in hundreds of US colleges, providing a major source of revenue for the schools and a crucial pipeline of talent for US technology companies. International students — 54 per cent from India and China — contributed more than US$50 billion to the US economy in 2023. Trump's crackdown comes at a critical period in the international student application process, as many young people prepare to travel to the US in August to find accommodation and settle in before term starts. Dai, 24, a Chinese student based in Chengdu, had planned to head to the US to complete her master's degree but is seriously considering taking up an offer in Britain instead. "The policies (by the US government) were a slap in my face. I'm thinking about my mental health and I may change schools." Students from Britain and the European Union are also more hesitant to apply to US universities, said Tom Moon, deputy head of consultancy at Oxbridge Applications, which helps students in their university applications. There has been an uptick in applications to British universities from prospective students in the US, said Universities UK, an organisation that promotes British institutions. It said, however, that it was too early to say whether that translates into more students enrolling. Ella Rickets, an 18-year old first year student at Harvard from Canada, said she receives a generous aid package paid for by the school's donors. However, she is concerned that she won't be able to afford other options if forced to transfer. "Around the time I was applying to schools, the only university across the Atlantic I considered was Oxford. "However, I realised that I would not be able to afford the international tuition and there was no sufficient scholarship or financial aid available," she said. If Harvard's ability to enrol foreign students is revoked, she would most likely apply to the University of Toronto, she said. Analytics firm QS said overall visits to its 'Study in America' online guide have declined by 17.6 per cent in the last year — with interest from India alone down over 50 per cent. "If America turns these brilliant and talented students away, they will find other places to work and study," said Caleb Thompson, a 20-year-old US student at Harvard, who lives with eight international scholars. Additional reporting by John Geddie The writers are from Reuters
Malay Mail
9 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Courtroom tariff wars: Time for Malaysia to build a tariff-proof economy — Yap Wen Min
MAY 31 — On 29 May 2025, a US appeals court temporarily brought back President Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs, just one day after a trade court ruled them illegal. It was a reminder that recent shifts in US trade policy today are shaped not just by economic logic but by political swings — and even the courts now play a role in moderating that balance. For global partners like Malaysia, that means preparing for a world where trade rules are constantly doubted. According to BNM's Monetary Policy Statement (8 May 2025), the tariff measures announced by the US, along with retaliatory actions, have weakened the outlook on global growth and trade. The central bank also highlighted that the balance of risks to Malaysia's growth outlook is tilted to the downside, with references to external factors such as trade tensions and geopolitical uncertainties. Malaysia is among the countries subjected to these elevated tariffs, with a 24 per cent tariff on its exports to the US, justified by Washington as a response to trade imbalances — but applied without consultation. According to the Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE), the rationale behind Malaysia's 24 per cent tariff was based on the US administration's calculation of trade imbalances. In a Presidential Memorandum issued on 2 April 2025, President Donald Trump declared that under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), large and persistent US goods trade deficits are a threat to national security. The memorandum also stated that its large trade deficits were mainly due to lack of reciprocity in bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates, non-tariff barriers, and economic policies of key trading partners that suppress domestic wages and consumption. The tariffs, which targeted imports from most US trading partners including Malaysia, were introduced under the rationale of correcting 'unfair trade imbalances' (The White House, 2025). Earlier, in February 2025, Trump's administration had separately imposed additional tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada for enabling the fentanyl crisis. This earlier line of tariffs adds another layer of complexity to the broader trade picture leading into the April 'Liberation Day' announcement. Even if the method of setting 24 per cent for Malaysia may look rational on paper, the way it was applied outside multilateral frameworks and without prior consultation makes it part of a larger erosion of predictable, rules-based trade. Indeed, it has already created ripple effects across supply chains and investment flows. A report by Fitch Ratings also highlighted that these tariffs could lead to increased costs and operational challenges for companies reliant on cross-border trade. In response to these challenges, Malaysia has sought to deepen its economic ties with other partners. Notably, during a state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Kuala Lumpur in April 2025, Malaysia and China signed over 30 bilateral cooperation agreements aimed at enhancing trade and investment relations. These agreements are part of Malaysia's strategy to diversify its trade partnerships and mitigate the impact of US tariffs. At the Asean summit in Kuala Lumpur on 27 May 2025, Southeast Asian leaders reached a consensus that any bilateral trade agreements with the United States regarding tariffs should not negatively impact other member nations. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, serving as ASEAN Chair, emphasized the importance of this unified stance to protect the region's collective economic interests amid global market volatility and the imposition of US-led tariffs that could impose duties ranging from 32 per cent to 49 per cent on six Asean countries. He also announced efforts to engage US President Trump directly to discuss these measures. Trucks drive past containers at the Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan in Ningbo, in China's eastern Zhejiang Province on May 28, 2025. — AFP pic We are entering a period where the rules of global trade are increasingly subject to reinterpretation. Legal challenges, geopolitical shifts, and executive orders constantly reshape what used to be predictable. For Malaysia, reacting case-by-case to new tariffs is no longer enough. In this uncertain climate, what's needed now is a structural, forward-looking strategy to insulate the economy from tariff shocks — positioning Malaysia not just as a victim of trade volatility but as a resilient and indispensable player in global supply chains. By 'tariff-proof', it implies making the economy resilient — able to withstand sudden tariff shocks without stopping growth or investment. Our strategy must tariff-proof the economy by diversifying risk and deepening competitiveness. Reshore and diversify supply chains Malaysia should scale up efforts to attract high-value manufacturing, especially in electronics and semiconductors, by capitalising on the global 'China +1' shift. Multinationals are already looking for alternatives outside China, and Malaysia is the front-runner in Southeast Asia for that trend. Leading global technology companies, including Microsoft, Google, and Oracle, have made substantial investments in Malaysia, reinforcing the country's position as a pivotal hub in the global semiconductor and digital infrastructure sector. The government can speed this up by offering targeted incentives like tax breaks, upgraded infrastructure, and workforce training to attract factories and R&D centres in strategic sectors. At the same time, developing more domestic capacity for key components — or sourcing them from trusted trade partners — would help buffer the impact if US tariffs or Chinese export controls disrupt critical supplies. Expand export support and insurance Even with diversification, Malaysian exporters will face new trade risks. The government should enhance trade finance and risk mitigation tools so that firms can weather tariff shocks. While Malaysia already provides export credit guarantees and market development grants, these should be boosted and made more flexible. It is also crucial to streamline export credit insurance, raise funding caps on trade missions, and help SMEs adapt products for new markets (e.g., halal certification, digital marketing) as recommended by the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers. Such measures make Malaysian exports tariff-resilient by lowering the cost of finding and developing non-US buyers or adapting to changing rules. Position Malaysia as a trusted, neutral hub Geopolitically, Malaysia's strength lies in neutrality and multilateralism. As the chair of Asean, Malaysia has led calls for trade deals that don't harm neighbours, and this should be translated into concrete policy. For example, the government can work with Asean partners to create a formal Supply Chain Coordination Council. Regional coordination — such as pooled risk-sharing or regional sourcing strategies — can protect Asean economies from the impact of unilateral trade actions. On the home front, Malaysia should continue improving the ease of doing business with trade-friendly customs and financing. We should also promote our currency and banking as alternatives for regional trade settlement to ease heavy reliance on any one superpower's currency. In the US, our diplomat tells Washington that Malaysia is an ally with secure markets and reliable suppliers. We should similarly cultivate ties with China and Europe, offering to host assembly of goods that neither power wants to fully onshore. By actively marketing Malaysia as a stable bridge, we turn uncertainty into opportunity. None of these steps will be easy, but other countries are already moving in similar directions. In short, Malaysia must make its economy tariff-proof — by reshoring key supply lines, expanding export credit and insurance, steering investment into future-ready industries, and leveraging our neutral stance. By doing so, we show investors worldwide that Malaysia is a safe harbour amid trade turbulence. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Star
9 hours ago
- The Star
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration "parole" for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of "temporary protected status" for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. "This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country," said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history "has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process," Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. "President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants "notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. "The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court "has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States." A WRONGLY DEPORTED MAN In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's "more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies" without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. "I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance," said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. "But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field." That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. "Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected," Mukherjee said. "Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives." TRAVEL BAN RULING Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called "third countries" be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. "I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country," Johnson said. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
