India must protect its farmers, digital ecosystem, policy space in trade pact with US: GTRI
New Delhi, Jun 27 (PTI) Any trade agreement with the US must not be politically driven or one-sided and India should protect its farmers, digital ecosystem, and policy space, economic think tank GTRI said on Friday.
With India's chief trade negotiator in Washington DC and the clock ticking, the next few days could determine whether India and the US settle for a limited mini-deal or walk away from the negotiating table - at least for now, the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) said.
The two sides are looking at finalising an interim trade pact before July 9, as it marks the end of US President Donald Trump's 90-day suspension of the country-specific tariffs, originally announced on April 2.
"The more likely outcome is a limited trade pact - styled after the US-UK mini trade deal announced on May 8," GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said, adding, "any trade deal with the US must not be politically driven or one-sided, it must protect our farmers, our digital ecosystem, and our sovereign regulatory space."
Under a mini or interim deal, according to the think tank, India is expected to cut tariffs on a wide range of industrial goods, including automobiles, a persistent demand from Washington.
In agriculture, India may offer limited market access through tariff reductions and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) on select US products such as ethanol, almonds, walnuts, apples, raisins, avocados, olive oil, spirits, and wine, it added.
Beyond tariffs, the US is expected to press India for large-scale commercial purchases, including oil and LNG, civilian and military aircraft from Boeing, helicopters, and nuclear reactors, it said.
"There may also be pressure on India to ease FDI restrictions in multi-brand retail, potentially benefiting firms like Amazon and Walmart and to liberalise rules on remanufactured goods, currently subject to stringent import norms," Srivastava said.
Agricultural goods account for less than 5 per cent of US exports to India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Mumbai now free of loudspeakers at religious structures, says police chief
MUMBAI: Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti on Saturday asserted that the city is now entirely free of directional loudspeakers after its personnel successfully completed a comprehensive crackdown on public address systems at all religious structures. "All loudspeakers from religious structures have been removed. Mumbai is now loudspeaker-free from all religious structures," Bharti told PTI. The police commissioner, refuting claims of selective targeting, made it clear that religious structures of a particular community had not been singled out and stressed that the operation was conducted methodically, in line with the Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's directive for proper and non-arbitrary action. "We engaged in deliberations with community and religious leaders and also political party leaders and prevailed upon them," Bharti explained, highlighting the collaborative approach taken before implementing the measures. This action follows an order issued by the Bombay High Court in January this year, in which the police were directed to take prompt action against loudspeakers violating noise pollution norms and rules. The high court reiterated that the use of loudspeakers is not considered an essential part of any religion. Commenting about the scale of the operation, the police chief said, "We have removed around 1,500 directional loudspeakers from religious structures across the city. The police will also ensure that such loudspeakers are not put up again." While the ban on permanent loudspeakers is now in effect, the police commissioner clarified that temporary permissions for the use of loudspeakers will be granted during religious festivals. The high court, in its order, had noted that noise was a major health hazard and no one can claim that their rights are affected in any manner if he or she is denied permission to use loudspeakers. Mumbai was a cosmopolitan city, and obviously, there were persons of different religions in every part of the city, the court had said. The court order was passed on a petition by two housing associations from suburban Kurla — Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association and Shivsrushti Co-op. Housing Societies Association Ltd. — alleging police inaction against noise pollution caused by loudspeakers installed on masjids in the area. The petitioners contended that the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes, including the recitation of 'Azaan,' disturbed the peace and violated the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, as well as provisions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Despite airstrikes, Trump officials quietly courted Iran with $30 billion nuclear deal and sanction relief
Even though US president Donald Trump publicly celebrated the bold strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, his administration is quietly pursuing a very different approach by secretly meeting with Iranian officials and proposing various deals to lure them back to the negotiating table for nuclear talks, as per a report. Trump Administration Holds Secret Nuclear Talks With Iran According to a CNN report, a team of US officials led by special envoy Steve Witkoff have been engaged in private conversations with Iranian officials amid the heightened tensions and conflict with Israel. Sources familiar with the talks told CNN that the Trump administration floated proposals that included the possibility of investing $20 to $30 billion in a civilian non-enrichment nuclear program in Iran, as reported by Daily Beast. The team has reportedly even discussed about the potential of lifting some sanctions so Tehran could access $6 billion which are frozen in foreign bank accounts, according to the report. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mountain Gear for Extreme Conditions Trek Kit India Learn More Undo A Trump administration official told CNN on the condition of anonymity that, 'The U.S. is willing to lead these talks,' adding, 'And someone is going to need to pay for the nuclear program to be built, but we will not make that commitment,' as quoted by Daily Beast in its report. ALSO READ: Trump says Iran warned of missile strike at Al Udeid base: 'They asked if 1 o'clock was OK — I said fine' Live Events Gulf Allies Could Help Rebuild Fordow Site While, two other Trump administration officials revealed that the Trump administration even suggested that US-backed allies in the Gulf could pay to replace the recently bombed Fordow nuclear site with a civilian non-enrichment program, as reported by Daily Beast. CNN's source told the outlet, 'There are a lot of ideas being thrown around by different people, and a lot of them are trying to be creative,' and another source added, 'I think it is entirely uncertain what will happen here,' as quoted by Daily Beast. ALSO READ: Pornhub, XNXX in panic? US Supreme Court ruling lets states crack down on online adult content access Donald Trump Dismisses Urgency of New Nuclear Deal However, the US president told reporters during the NATO Summit on Wednesday that he did not believe a new nuclear deal with Iran was necessary, even though he confirmed that the United States would be holding talks with Iran next week, but the date is not yet been decided, according to the Daily Beast report. Trump mentioned that, 'We may sign an agreement, I don't know,' as quoted in the report. He said, 'They had a war, they fought, now they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not,' as quoted by Daily Beast. Previously, talks between Washington and Tehran were supposed to be held in Oman but were cancelled after Israel launched an attack on Iranian targets, as per the report. US Focuses on Promoting a Non-Enrichable Nuclear Future for Iran While Witkoff told CNBC on Wednesday that the United States continues to seek a 'comprehensive peace agreement,' as quoted by Daily Beast. He highlighted that, 'Now the issue and the conversation with Iran is going to be, how do we rebuild a better civil nuclear program for you that is non-enrichable?' as quoted in the report. FAQs Is the US lifting sanctions in Iran? There's discussion of easing sanctions to allow Iran access to $6 billion in frozen assets. Is the US negotiating with Iran while bombing its nuclear sites? According to a CNN report, the Trump administration has reportedly been in secret talks with Iranian officials even after the strikes.
Mint
32 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Runs Up Supreme Court Winning Streak, Amassing More Power
The US Supreme Court's just-completed term had a clear winner: President Donald Trump. With a 6-3 ruling Friday restricting the power of judges to issue nationwide blocks on presidential initiatives, the court put an exclamation mark on a term dominated by Trump victories. The court's conservative supermajority sided with Trump on both broad legal questions and an unprecedented barrage of emergency requests to let his policies take effect right away. The end result was a stack of decisions deferring to Trump. The court let him discharge transgender people from the military, fire top officials at government agencies and open hundreds of thousands of migrants to deportation. The Supreme Court repeatedly reinstated Trump policies found by lower courts to be illegal, and it undercut judges who said the administration had violated their orders. At times, the court gave little if any explanation for its actions, even as liberal justices blasted the majority for rewarding what they said was Trump's lawlessness. 'The court treated him as if he were a normal president, and I think that was probably a mistake,' said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. The court has yet to grapple with 'what to do with the president who does not seem to be motivated by public spiritedness or the good of the country and doesn't necessarily subscribe to American values like due process and liberty and equality.' The ruling Friday gives the administration a new tool to try to stop judges from putting policies on hold. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett faulted three trial judges for issuing so-called nationwide injunctions halting Trump's plan to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,' said Barrett, one of three Trump appointees on the court. Trump, who thanked by name the six Republican-appointed justices in the majority, declared the decision a 'monumental victory.' He said the administration would move to lift holds judges have placed on a number of his policies, mentioning fights over refugee resettlement, federal spending and so-called sanctuary cities. 'The Supreme Court has finally put a stop to this judicial activism, which has abused our constitutional separation of powers for too long,' Alabama's Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in an emailed statement. The decision was one of five rulings the court released Friday as it issued the term's last opinions in argued cases. Among other decisions was one that backed Trump's position by declaring that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school lessons for religious reasons. Earlier in the month, the court agreed with Trump in another culture-war clash, upholding state bans on certain medical treatments for transgender children. The court on Monday and Thursday will likely indicate new cases the justices will hear in their next nine-month term, which will start in October. Trump suffered a rare setback in May when the court blocked the administration from using a rarely used wartime law to send about 176 Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison before they had a chance to make their case to a judge. 'This ruling was particularly significant because it showed the court's willingness to enforce constitutional constraints even on immigration enforcement — typically an area where the court defers strongly to executive authority,' said Stephanie Barclay, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law School. But the following month, the court appeared to undercut the decision when it let the administration resume quickly deporting migrants to countries other than their own. The court gave no explanation for the decision, which lifted a judge's order that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to argue they would be at risk of torture. The birthright citizenship case didn't directly concern the legality of the restrictions, which would upend a longstanding constitutional right. Trump seeks to jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. The executive order would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The practical effect of the ruling remains to be seen. The 22 states challenging the citizenship plan can still argue at the lower court level that they need a nationwide halt to avoid the financial costs and administrative headaches that would result if the restrictions applied in neighboring jurisdictions. And Barrett explicitly left open the prospect that people challenging policies can press class action lawsuits. A prominent critic of nationwide injunctions, Notre Dame law professor Samuel Bray, hailed the decision — but also predicted a surge of class action suits and new court orders blocking the citizenship policy. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' Bray said in a statement. Barrett cast the ruling as a nonpartisan one, noting that the Biden administration also sought to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions. 'It's easy to see why. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached 'a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court,' Barrett wrote, quoting from a law review article co-written by Bray and University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Critics of the court said that characterization missed a key point. 'It is true, of course, that universal injunctions have bedeviled both prior Democratic and Republican administrations,' Michael Dorf, a professor who teaches constitutional law and federal courts at Cornell Law School, said in an email. 'But the court fails to recognize the fact that eliminating a tool for courts to rein in the executive branch is especially perilous at this particular moment, when we have an administration that is already inclined to take a casual attitude towards judicial orders.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
