Trump ‘frustrated' with progress on trade talks with India: White House adviser
On the 25 per cent tariff on India, Hassett added that "what's going to happen is that India is going to cut their prices to the US in order to maintain their market share'.
'That's what everybody else has been doing, and then they might reconsider their practices, which have led to this higher rate. And over time, I would guess the Indian firms will be onshoring production in the US, and Indians might even open their markets more to us, so that we reconsider a future trade deal,' he said.
On the tariff, Partner at The Asia Group Nisha Biswal said in a statement that the US is using 'hardball tactics' when there is an ambitious deal already on the table.
'There were many reasons why the final deal seems to have faltered. One, President Trump wanted to retain a minimum 20 per cent baseline tariff on India; this was a non-starter for New Delhi,' she said.
Biswal, who was Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs at the Department of State from 2013 to 2017, added that Trump wanted US agricultural and dairy exports to India and New Delhi has gone as far as it can for now given domestic sensitivities.
Trump also wanted to directly negotiate with Prime Minister Narendra Modi since he felt that the deal did not go far enough, while New Delhi thought it had an expansive deal with the US Trade Representative and 'didn't want Trump to reopen or renegotiate terms like Vietnam', she said.
'Trump is now exerting maximum pressure on India to get Modi's attention. Modi may want to examine what Japan, the EU and China did, all of whom have faced Trump's ire. Keep cool, retaliate if you must, but keep the channel open,' Biswal said.
'Trump wants more than what his negotiators got, and India needs to be ready with what it will give him. While he is throwing everyone in the mix—defence, Russian oil etc. – he is looking for a deal and this is how he negotiates, friend or foe. The real tragedy would be if both sides walk away from a big win. And the implications for US businesses and India's economy could be quite severe,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
When politics reeks of bitterness, misconduct
Eleven days from now, India will be celebrating its 78th Independence Day. Eight decades is a long enough time to take stock of our democracy and polity. Are we moving in the right direction? Are today's politicians working towards strengthening our democracy as envisioned by the founding fathers of the Republic? What better way to celebrate the approaching Independence Day than to seek answers to these probing queries? We, as citizens, have some basic expectations from our Parliament. It should not be reduced to an arena of vote politics. (Hindustan Times) Let's address the first question. Have a look at the debate over Operation Sindoor. Indians were hoping for the ruling party to put all the facts in the public domain while the Opposition would articulate its criticism and chip in with constructive suggestions. However, what unfolded was completely different. The Opposition got a fair chance to put their views forward in both houses. The ruling dispensation showcased all their facts, but the entire exercise fell far short of clearing the doubts assailing the minds of the citizens. We, as citizens, have some basic expectations from our Parliament. It should not be reduced to an arena of vote politics. Unfortunately, that's become the norm now. I have been a student of parliamentary debates. Our politics has been steadily degenerating. Bitterness has seeped into it, and politicians speak irresponsibly. Political parties of every hue are equally responsible for it. Even before the debate started, the first week of the monsoon session was a wash-out due to vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar's surprise resignation. The media corridors were rattled by Dhankhar's resignation bomb at the end of the first day of the monsoon session. Political developments that day unfolded like a suspense thriller. No one could figure out the climax till the very end. In the morning, he came as usual to the Rajya Sabha, conducted its proceedings, and met leaders from the treasury benches and the Opposition. In the afternoon, he met BJP president JP Nadda and parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju. It seems the talks couldn't be concluded, so another meeting was convened in the evening. Nadda and Rijiju didn't attend, but the minister of State for parliamentary affairs, L Murugan, was present. What transpired in the afternoon meeting? Why didn't the senior ministers attend the evening meeting? Was there any difference of opinion between them and Dhankhar? Did the vice-president resign on his own? Or was he forced to quit? What will Dhankhar's next move be? Will he follow in the footsteps of former Jammu and Kashmir governor Satya Pal Malik? Or will he quietly bow out? Queries, conjectures, and concerns remain. It seems we are turning into a democracy that's bogged down in a maze of uncertain, dubious, and unnecessary debates. Dhankhar came into the limelight when he was made the governor of West Bengal. From the moment he entered the Raj Bhawan, he trained his guns on the chief minister, Mamata Banerjee. His words and deeds didn't go down well with those who preferred political propriety. This was the reason when he was made the vice-president, his detractors thought he had been rewarded for what he did in West Bengal, as Banerjee is considered the BJP's prime foe. As vice-president, it was his responsibility to conduct Rajya Sabha proceedings fairly and impartially. The way he conducted the proceedings in his early days raised many eyebrows. Accusations were levelled against him, but he was unfazed. Those opposed to the BJP said he was doing all this as he had an eye on the President's post. Initially, people were surprised by his sudden exit, but there's very little sympathy for him now. Unfortunately, such unpleasant incidents are growing. Look at the recently concluded session of the Bihar Assembly. It was the last session of the current term, a time to say polite goodbyes and warm wishes for the journey ahead. But it too degenerated into a mudslinging fest peppered with debased language, creating situations where it felt as if the leaders would come to blows. Bihar will go to the polls later this year, and the elections may turn into an ugly battle of bitterness and allegations. The Election Commission of India (ECI) undertook a special intensive revision of the electoral roll. The Opposition alleges it's a conspiracy to delete their voters from the list. The ECI didn't budge. Chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar curtly retorted: Should the ECI list the dead and foreigners in the roll? The Supreme Court also questioned the timing of the revision. The Opposition had alleged something completely different during the Maharashtra assembly elections. It's not clear who's right or wrong, but it's clear that those gracing constitutional posts are more interested in confrontation than building consensus. Let's address the second question. Are we heading in the right direction? At a time of ever-expanding hate and the normalisation of debased language and political misconduct, it would be tough to suggest that our journey ahead will be smooth. Political parties have devoted decades to creating linguistic, regional and social divides instead of bridging them. They have conveniently forgotten that the growing divides can drown them as well. Dhankhar is only its latest victim. Let's address the third question. The future is shaped by the present; the actions of today build the foundations of a new order. That's the law of nature. If so, can anyone bet confidently on the future when the present is roiled by discontent, inconsistency, incongruity and apprehension? Shashi Shekhar is the editor-in-chief, Hindustan. The views expressed are personal.
India.com
18 minutes ago
- India.com
Meet T-14 Armata Tank, super powerful war weapon offered by Russia to India, its features are..., Trump to...
New Delhi: US President Donald Trump is not happy with India and Russia's friendship and is threatening both countries with tariffs. Amidst this, the two countries are discussing a crucial defence deal that might further enrage Trump. What has Russia offered to India? Russia has offered to sell the next-generation T-14 Armata tanks to India to replace its ageing T-72 tanks with new tanks. Russia's offer includes domestic manufacturing in India under the Make in India programme. Armata tanks are made by the Russian company Uralvagonzavod, and the T-14 Armata is its most advanced tank. Uralvagonzavod has offered to design and develop this tank according to India's needs for its Next Generation Battle Tank (NGMBT) programme. For this, the Russian company has shown interest in partnering with Indian defence companies. What is the crux of the proposal? The proposal includes possible collaboration with India's Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) or other public sector defence units. The proposal is strategically prepared according to India's 'Make-I' procurement category, which aims to increase India's indigenous production. Under this plan, the Government of India provides up to 70% of the funding for developing prototypes, which emphasises domestic manufacturing and technology transfer. Will India buy the advanced T-14 Armata tank? Uralvagonzavod had signed a technology transfer agreement with India for T-90S tanks, which are now manufactured in India as T-90 Bhishma. India uses more than 83 per cent domestic technology in the T-90S tank, including complete localisation of the tank's engine. Russian officials have also expressed their intention to work with India for the local production of the T-14 Armata tank project. Company officials have suggested that the T-14 Armata would be an ideal successor to replace the Indian Army's huge but ageing fleet of T-72 tanks. Why is T-14 Armata considered one of the most advanced tanks in the world? The T-14 Armata is considered one of the most advanced tanks in the world. It has many remotely operated functions, an armoured capsule for the crew, a state-of-the-art digital control system and an active protection system (APS) called 'Afghanit'. This system is capable of destroying the enemy's anti-tank missiles on the way. Three operators can sit inside this tank and destroy the enemy's anti-tank missiles and RPGs in the air. It has a millimetre-wave radar, which provides 360-degree protection. Guided missiles can also be fired from this tank up to 8–10 kilometres. The maximum speed of this tank is 75 to 80 kilometres per hour, and its range is 500 kilometres. The weight of this tank is 55 tonnes, and its cost is around Rs 30 to 42 crore. If it is manufactured in India, its cost will be reduced by at least Rs 10 crore.
India.com
18 minutes ago
- India.com
No Consensus, Just Conflict: Operation Sindoor Debate Sinks Into Bitter Blame Game Between Govt And Opposition
New Delhi: The brief political unity witnessed in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent military conflict with Pakistan seems to have unravelled following the surprise ceasefire announcement on May 10. This week's marathon three-day debate in Parliament on Operation Sindoor laid bare the widening gulf between the government and the Opposition. It reinforces the notion that in today's India, consensus is the exception, not the norm. The debate gave an opportunity to the leaders of both the government and the Opposition to show unity against terrorism coming from Pakistan. While many speakers across party lines called for a common stance, their speeches exposed deep divisions. The Opposition left no stone unturned to corner the lawmakers and pressed for answers on critical issues such as security and intelligence lapses preceding the Pahalgam attack, accountability for those failures, losses suffered by the Indian Air Force, and the true nature of US involvement. Notably, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose not to respond in the Rajya Sabha, delegating the reply to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, which triggered an Opposition walkout. From the government's perspective, the needle moved favourably, for instance, Union Home Minister Amit Shah confirmed the elimination of the Pahalgam terrorists, and Prime Minister Modi asserted that "no global leader" had urged India to halt its military operation. Meanwhile, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar put a full stop to speculations regarding New Delhi's differences with Washington, including issues of deportations, visas, and student concerns, aimed at closing talks around Trump's role in India-Pakistan ceasefire. However, the Opposition remained unsatisfied. Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi challenged the Prime Minister to publicly refute US President Donald Trump's claims of brokering the ceasefire, labeling the challenge 'political rhetoric.' While the PM skipped any mention of Trump and his repeated assertions of having brokered the ceasefire, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh sidestepped questions regarding the fighter jets lost on the first day of conflict, instead urging a results-focused perspective, saying, 'In any exam, the result matters. We should see whether a student is getting good marks and not focus on whether his pencil was broken or his pen was lost.' Congress's Nationalist Strategy In an uncharacteristic move, the Congress party adopted a nationalist stance to continue putting pressure on the government. This approach aimed to score political points by portraying the government as weak on defense. However, the tables turned with former Home Minister P. Chidambaram's suggestion that the Pahalgam attackers might have been "homegrown terrorists", rather than Pakistan-backed. This offered the government an opportunity to criticise the grand old party's inconsistent position. Rahul Gandhi's speech was notably combative, alongside his sister, Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra recalled the resignations of Vilasrao Deshmukh as Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shivraj Patil as Union Home Minister after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to emphasise government accountability. Gandhi accused the Prime Minister of prioritising his image over the armed forces' freedom to operate, warning that 'the forces should be used with freedom and for the national interest' and urged a decisive military effort to 'defeat terrorism once and for all.' 'It is dangerous at this time for the Prime Minister to use the forces to protect his image. It is dangerous for the country. The forces should only be used in the national interest, and the forces should be used with freedom. If you want them to be used … then go all the way, fight properly and defeat them once and for all," he said. Historical Echoes In Debate The discussion frequently revisited historical parallels. The Congress party members highlighted Indira Gandhi's role in the creation of Bangladesh despite US pressure, contrasting it with the current ceasefire announcement influenced by the US. Meanwhile, the government drew attention to the Congress's perceived failings during critical moments, such as Partition, the wars of 1947–48 and 1965, the Indus Waters Treaty, and the 1962 war with China, to question the Opposition's credibility on national security. While the Congress remains burdened by its political legacy, this debate underscored the broader polarisation within Indian politics. Despite shared concerns over terrorism, the parties remain entrenched in mutual recriminations. With other INDIA bloc parties siding with the Congress in criticism of the government, the opposition front remains fragmented under intense BJP scrutiny.
