&w=3840&q=100)
Standing like a wall to protect interest of farmers, says PM Modi
'Modi will stand like a wall against any policy that threatens their interests. India will never compromise when it comes to protecting the interests of our farmers,' he said while addressing the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort to mark the 79th Independence Day.
This is the second time in the last 10 days that Prime Minister Modi has explicitly explained India's stand on trade negotiations, saying that he won't compromise on the interest of small farmers, dairy and livestock growers.
The last occasion was the centenary celebrations of agriculture scientist MS Swaminathan in Pusa. It had come just a day after US President Donald Trump announced a 50 per cent import tariff on Indian goods.
His comments were widely welcomed by some farmers groups with the ministry of agriculture even organising a function to express its gratitude for the stand taken.
Sources said the high tariff and the little progress that the bilateral trade deal has made so far has been mainly due to India's steadfast reluctance to open up its farm sector to cheap imports from the US.
In the proposed trade agreement, the US is seeking reduced tariffs on products like corn, soybeans, apples, almonds and ethanol, as well as increased access for US dairy products.
New Delhi is, however, opposing these demands as these will have a direct bearing on farmers.
India has never given any duty concessions to any of its trading partners on this, including Australia and Switzerland, with whom it has signed trade agreements.
The Prime Minister, in his address, also called for the urgent need to produce fertilisers domestically to empower farmers and protect national food security.
He said reducing import dependence ensures that the nation's agricultural sector thrives independently, safeguarding farmers' welfare and strengthening India's economic sovereignty.
Modi's appeal comes at a time when India has been importing record quantities of urea, DAP and some other raw materials to provide critical input to farmers.
The appeal also comes amid a severe shortage of fertilisers across India in the critical kharif sowing season.
The shortage has happened due to low imports of Di-Ammonia Phosphate (DAP) and also erratic supplies of urea. Yesterday, several state ministers in a meeting with Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan demanded additional urea supplies.
Chouhan asked states to take strict action against hoarders and black marketers, adding that the Centre was already sending enough supplies.
DAP and urea are two most consumed fertilisers in India accounting for almost 90 per cent of total annual consumption of around 60 million tonnes estimated in 2023-24.
Of this, around 18 million tonnes is imported while the rest is domestically produced.
A call for self-sufficiency in fertiliser production could shed some of the dependency on imports which has become highly volatile since the last few years due to geo-political reasons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a minute ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
Could India have handled President Trump better?
The Narendra Modi government converted an economically disastrous idea such as demonetisation into a political win. It dealt with a brutal Covid-19 pandemic that took millions of lives and devastated livelihoods, yet emerged politically unscathed. The Modi government played with fire on land acquisition and farm laws, yet pulled back without getting burnt. And despite its limited success in pulling off a manufacturing revolution to generate jobs on scale, it has remained politically dominant and maintained its multi-class and multi-caste alliance. The Modi government confronted a serious national security crisis with a far more powerful adversary, China, and had to redefine the idea of normalcy for the sake of peace, yet it did not pay a domestic political price. India dealt with a highly polarised West-Russia landscape and a China that was either actively hostile or passively aggressive or absent, yet pulled off a spectacular G20 presidency. It had to secure its interests with diametrically different American administrations with almost opposing priorities, and yet it was able to be friends with the sitting administration while still having enough goodwill with the preceding power constellation. How did a government that has been so adept in dealing with the domestic and international landscape, and overcoming its own missteps and mistakes, fumble in reading the US? How did a government so sharp in reading danger signals not manage friction when there were clear possibilities of trouble with the US from earlier this year, but definitely from May 10 when Donald Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire? How is it that in over 90 days since then, India, with all its equities and power, has failed to shift the conversation or make enough inroads into Trump's world to find a meeting ground while keeping to its redlines? To be sure, it has been difficult to predict the US president's next move, but there are countries that have managed to get their (limited) way. Let there be no doubt about the severity of the crisis. India is worse off among all the regional competitors for investment, and in its own immediate neighbourhood in terms of access to the US market. This has implications way beyond trade, for suddenly, the signal to American capital about India is of uncertainty, despite the charms of its huge market and extensive talent pool. This puts under strain India's broader economic modernisation roadmap that hinges at least partly, if not substantially, on western investment and technology partnerships to boost manufacturing and generate mass employment. India is confronting repeated blows against its core strategic concerns: Trump appears more than willing to make long-term strategic concessions for a deal with China. Pakistan's comeback to the Washington DC theatre, even if it is only in the short-term as some pundits believe, is arguably on a more broad-based diplomatic, economic and strategic footing than even 2001 when it was driven by the narrow counter terror frame in Afghanistan. And, India is paying a price for US-Russia tensions in ways that it hasn't for decades. India is also staring at a crisis in the people-to-people relationship, given the challenges in getting student visas, the backlash against H1Bs in Trump's base and intense spurt in anti-Indian and anti-Hindu racist rhetoric from the White supremacist Right. The biggest crisis, of course, is there are no easy pathways out of it anymore. The more time has passed, the more rhetoric has got meaner, the more demands have escalated and become public, the less political space there is to make compromises. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. There are structural factors at play, for core contradictions on trade openness and relationships with third countries have come to the fore. There are personality-centric issues at play, especially on the American side with a president who revels in sharpening contradictions with his own country's institutions, the international system, and allies and partners in the quest for political or personal or financial wins. And, there are unanticipated variables and events that have affected the chessboard. But none of this can take away from the fact that the government may have missed out on multiple opportunities to manage Trump. This is particularly striking since the political leadership has usually been alert in responding creatively in difficult situations, managing narratives, engaging with all kinds of interlocutors, unleashing diplomatic charm in the external domain or pre-empting rivals by appropriating political issues in the domestic domain, finding wins-wins when possible and framing compromises as wins when necessary. To be sure, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta has eloquently and wisely argued, the Trumpian project is an imperial project and dignity is essential. But avoiding being in the direct firing line of the imperial project was in national interest and the government's core diplomatic duty. And, yes, there may have been ways to do it without compromising on India's historic stance on third-party mediation, or on core interests of small farmers, or on Indian manufacturing potential. And, this was possible because a childishly transparent, vain and corrupt Trump world is always open to a better deal and packaging has always been more central to his politics than substance. To return to the puzzle then, what happened? A detailed empirical account will only emerge once the crisis passes, actors move on from their current roles, and files are declassified. And even a more specific discussion on who got what wrong and when and what could have been done need not detain us here. One school of thought is there was a problem with the personnel chosen to make judgments on the ground and offer advice. Another is that India may have genuinely misread the problem, or been unable to anticipate second or third order consequences of Trumpian rupture. A third suggests that there may have been a problem with the channels selected for execution of goals; India's adversaries and critics have been constantly in Trump's ear while India's perspective has failed to register a mark. It could well be a combination; the problems with personnel, judgment and execution, may have resulted in a problem in decision making. And, to be fair, all of this may have been exacerbated by domestic concerns, not just of the man (and woman) on the street, but the political Opposition. After 11 years, this is the biggest challenge facing Narendra Modi, and he may want to consider a reset. It could start with foreign policy but a full Kamraj-plan style reset across the party and government may not be a bad idea at this time, especially given the ambitious agenda the Prime Minister laid out in his Independence Day speech. This could bring fresh energy and ideas and shatter vested interests to help India prepare for the coming political, economic and strategic storms. For coming they are.
Indian Express
a minute ago
- Indian Express
ISL clubs warn AIFF of possibility of their shutting down entirely if current impasse not resolved
Eleven Indian Super League (ISL) clubs have warned the All India Football Federation (AIFF) that they 'face the real possibility of shutting down entirely' if the ongoing impasse regarding the future of the top-tier domestic competition is not resolved soon. In a letter written to AIFF President Kalyan Chaubey, the clubs said that the crisis arising out of the non-renewal of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the national federation and the ISL organisers FSDL has 'paralysed professional football in India'. 'Over past 11 years, through sustained investment and coordinated effort, clubs have built youth development systems, training infrastructure, community outreach programmes, and professional teams that have elevated India's footballing credibility both domestically and internationally,' the clubs wrote in the letter sent on Friday. 'This progress is now in imminent danger of collapse. The current standstill has created immediate and severe consequences. With operations suspended and no certainty on league continuity, several clubs face the real possibility of shutting down entirely.' The crisis surfaced after Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), the ISL organisers as well as AIFF's commercial partner, put the 2025-26 season 'on hold' on July 11 due to uncertainty over the renewal of the MRA, prompting at least three clubs to either pause first-team operations or suspend player and staff salaries. 'The 2025-26 ISL season is at risk of not taking place at all. This is not merely an administrative deadlock — it is an existential crisis for Indian football. We write to you in the gravest of circumstances,' the clubs wrote. 'The trust painstakingly built with fans, sponsors, investors, international footballing bodies over the past decade will be irreparably damaged if the league remains in limbo.' The letter was signed by Bengaluru FC, Hyderabad FC, Odisha FC, Chennaiyin FC, Jamshedpur FC, FC Goa, Kerala Blasters FC, Punjab FC, NorthEast United FC, Mumbai City FC and Mohammedan Sporting. Kolkata heavyweights Mohun Bagan Super Giant and East Bengal did not the sign the letter. Detailing the risk of club closures and livelihood loss, the letter said, 'More than 2000 direct livelihoods — players, coaches, medical staff, analysts, kit managers, groundsmen, administrative staff — hang in the balance, alongside countless indirect livelihoods dependent on the league. 'Clubs face a season where revenue from tickets, merchandise and other avenues will be reduced to zero. Potential sponsors have already started backing out, looking at the scenario that the ISL is in. 'This is a huge financial blow that clubs will not recover from this year and it will affect payout of salaries to players and staff in the immediate future, besides making several stakeholders contemplate a complete and permanent shut-down of their respective clubs.' The clubs said the impasse will also impact India's readiness for international matches, saying 'without a functioning league, our national team will be severely disadvantaged in upcoming AFC and FIFA tournaments'. They also said that without the ISL, they will not be able to play a minimum number of competitive matches for participation in continental competitions, thereby risking suspension of Indian clubs from AFC tournaments. 'The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) mandates a minimum number of competitive matches for participation in continental competitions. Without ISL, this requirement cannot be met, putting India at risk of suspension from all AFC and FIFA tournaments,' the clubs said. 'FIFPRO, the global players' union, has already apprised FIFA of the situation, increasing the likelihood of external scrutiny and possible sanctions.' On Thursday, the AIFF had agreed to mention the raging issue concerning the ISL before the Supreme Court on Monday. The apex court has reserved its judgement in the case relating to the draft constitution of the AIFF. The decision to apprise the SC of the crisis situation was taken after a meeting of the legal representatives of the clubs and the AIFF. In fact, a reliable source said that the AIFF is willing to file a written application if the Supreme Court asks for one. 'We fully appreciate that related matters are before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, from the record of recent hearings, it appears that the immediacy and scale of the crisis have not been clearly conveyed to the Hon'ble Court,' the clubs said. 'The human cost, the threat of clubs folding, the risk of losing our place in AFC/FIFA competitions, and the reputational harm to India's footballing image demand urgent action on our part. 'We therefore respectfully request the AIFF, as the regulator of Indian football, to urgently mention this matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Monday, 18 August 2025, and to append this letter to present the unified concerns of all ISL clubs before the Hon'ble Court.' The clubs said they are ready to support the AIFF in the case through their counsels though they are not parties to the proceedings before the SC. 'Immediate collective action is the only way to preserve Indian football's future, safeguard livelihoods, and protect the country's standing in the global football community. We remain committed to working alongside the AIFF to achieve a resolution.'
