&w=3840&q=100)
Best of BS Opinion: Short circuits and sharp jolts in India's policy wiring
Take the India-US trade talks. After months of cautious optimism, the government's effort to rewire its trade dynamics short-circuited spectacularly, as noted in our first editorial. President Trump slammed Indian exports with a 25 per cent tariff and penalties, using oil imports from Russia as a pretext. What began as a negotiation to avoid escalation, is threatening to end with sparks flying, and not the celebratory kind.
Meanwhile, as the government readies the 8th Central Pay Commission, it's facing its own overload. Our second editorial highlights how public sector wage tweaks, meant to keep the grid stable, are burdened by a swelling wage bill and outdated structures. The CPC needs to avoid another power trip and focus on long-term circuitry: merit-based raises, fiscal sustainability, and detangling overqualification traps in the labour market.
In a column by Pranjul Bhandari, the power drain is in India's credit system. Despite the RBI flipping every switch with rate cuts, and liquidity infusions, the demand isn't flowing. The current has shifted from supply-side shortages to structural kinks: informal sectors are lighting up, formal sectors dimming, and banks are left with plenty of volts but no takers.
And in a piece by Shishir Gupta and Aalhya Sabharwal, the disconnect is painfully visible in the female workforce. India's low female labour force participation rate isn't just about norms — it's also about bad wiring: rigid labour laws, poor education, and a demand-side system that fails to create jobs where women can thrive. Unlike Bangladesh's high-voltage garment sector, India hasn't even plugged into the right socket.
Finally, Kanika Datta's review of The CIA Book Club: The Best-Kept Secret of the Cold War by Charlie English, offers the rare case where flicking the intellectual switch worked. Smuggling books like Animal Farm into Soviet zones turned out to be a quiet but powerful rebellion. Sometimes, you don't need brute electricity, just a spark of an idea.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Kal Penn at Express Adda: ‘In content creation, people taking fewer risks… It (art) needs to be subjective'
Talking about his nearly three decade-long career in Hollywood, Kal Penn, American actor-producer of Indian origin, said that he stands on the shoulders of so many Indian and South Asian diaspora actors who are older than him by 40-50 years and whose names people don't know because they never had the opportunities that he had. 'I had those opportunities because of the doors that they kicked down in Hollywood,' he said, emphasising that contrary to popular perception, there was no 'overnight switch' that created platforms for diaspora artists. Penn, also an author, TV show host and former White House staffer, was in conversation with Anant Goenka, Executive Director, The Indian Express Group, at the Express Adda in Mumbai on Friday. 'It is easy to use a 2025 microscope and say I should have done that in 1998,' said Penn, recalling that he was told he couldn't study acting and was called a 'sell-out' for choosing to pursue theatre and arts. Talking about his early films, he said: 'People ask me if I regret playing the character of Taj Mahal in Van Wilder (2002), a teen sex comedy. I always say, first of all, you are welcome. Because without that, there would be no Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (2004). And without that, I would not have got The Namesake (2006).' It was Mira Nair's then 14-year-old son Zohran Mamdani, who is now a New York State Assembly member running for Mayor, who suggested Penn's name for The Namesake. Asked about 'liberalism in Hollywood', Penn said: 'It is the same liberalism you see supporting (Joe) Biden and (Kamala) Harris in their assault on Gaza, which is not that different from Donald Trump and JD Vance's assault on Gaza. If you care about human rights, you see a distinct line, but I don't see one with liberals in general. If you see what the Democratic Party has been doing on that particular issue, wages or taxation with a select few states, they have not really been wonderful in the way that true progressives have been.' The actor, who wears many hats, served as White House staff member in the Barack Obama administration. Looking back at the Obama administration, Penn said he wished more had been done to secure public arts institutions. 'We gave in to the fear-mongering around funding the arts. Now those institutions are getting dismantled,' he said. Commenting on the contemporary entertainment scenario, Penn said: 'In content creation, people are taking fewer risks now. That's why there is the perception that the lowest common denominator is the only thing that is being made now… It (art) needs to be subjective and not everything should be for everybody. I am not precious about the stuff I watch or the genres I want to be in. If I like a script or a story, that is enough. One of the challenges we are facing now is, if something does not appeal to business leaders or financiers think it should appeal to… it may not get greenlit. I hope that changes because that's when you see more interesting content.' While stand-up comics have come under the scanner in India and the US, the actor made it clear that he appreciates the work of those who have an authentic voice. 'It does not mean I have to share their lived experience. It means that I find their style of storytelling vulnerable, authentic and fun to watch,' he said. Commenting on the rise of incidents when people are offended by comedians, he said he does not understand the extreme reaction. 'Sometimes, we misunderstand what getting cancelled means. Then, on other occasions, a comedian makes regressive jokes which upset people. I understand that. But as a relative purist, ideally I would defend the right to free speech even if that (the joke) bothers me.' Connecting the growth of Indian streaming content to global creative trends, he praised shows like Delhi Crime and Made in Heaven for handling complex themes without pretending to represent a single, simplified idea of India. 'What excites me the most is how Indian creators are making space for stories that are messy, local, honest, sometimes deeply political, sometimes just weird and joyful,' he said. Asked about South Asian solidarity, especially between Indian and Pakistani artists abroad, he said: 'There is a shared experience among the diaspora. There are some divisions that exist on the sub-continent… there is also an undercurrent of the same stigmatisation that we all go through. Not just actors, but Nepali filmmakers and Sri Lankan creative people.' The Express Adda is a series of informal interactions organised by The Indian Express Group and features those at the centre of change. Previous guests at the Adda include Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, philanthropist Bill Gates, actors Pankaj Tripathi and Tabu, oncologist and writer Siddhartha Mukherjee, musician T M Krishna, ecologist Romulus Whitaker and writer William Dalrymple.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
To secure US trade deal, key ministries told to list what they can bring to talks table
FOLLOWING US President Donald Trump's tariff sledgehammer, the government has kicked off an exercise to thrash out concessions across sectors that can be offered in the tariff negotiations later this month. Key economic ministries have been asked to see what they can still afford to offer to sweeten New Delhi's deal when the US team is here on August 25. To reach an agreement, the Trump administration has been demanding much more than what the government has offered in its market access commitments, including lowering of tariffs across the board and removal of non-tariff trade barriers. As policymakers grapple with Trump's announcement of a 25 per cent tariff on goods from August 7, alongside an additional but unspecified 'penalty' for its defence and energy imports from Russia, economic ministries have started sending in sectoral tariff concessions in their jurisdictions. There are indications oil refiners have started reducing Russian oil purchases. Some of these concessions, if calibrated well, could ensure an opening up of the domestic economy, sources aware of discussions at the highest levels told The Indian Express. In fact, it was an external crisis that had forced the reforms of 1991. Most importantly, the sources said, an unnecessary show of bravado in countering some of Trump's assertions, however ridiculous they may be, should be avoided. India was one of the first countries the Trump administration had expected to sign a deal with, but slow progress has been a source of frustration for Washington DC. Like countries around the world scrambling to deal with Trump's tariff threats, India had largely adopted a principled, but non-confrontational, stance in an attempt to balance selective concessions with caution to safeguard its economic growth, and circumvent a backlash from domestic producers. Sources closely tracking the US talks with others said a majority of the countries that rushed to sign deals with the world's biggest economy ended up with lopsided agreements that effectively extracted more than what it gave. This includes the UK and Australia that have a trade deficit with the US. On talks with New Delhi, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC Thursday: 'Well, I don't know what's going to happen; it will be up to India. India came to the table early. They have been slow-rolling things, so I think that the President, the whole trade team is frustrated with them. And also, India has been a large buyer of sanctioned Russian oil, that they then resell as refined products. So, they have not been a great global actor'. The assumption in New Delhi has always been that Washington DC will maintain a differential of 10-20 per cent in tariffs between China and India; and that the Americans would be cognizant of India's traditional redlines that have endured for decades, including concerns over GM food crops and the need to safeguard the interest of the vast subsistence-level manufacturing base that has an oversized contribution to labour-intensive exports. The government is also keen to stay away from offering duty concessions on imports of agri items such as soybean, corn and dairy, in the interim deal. While the government has offered to cut tariffs on 55 per cent of US imports, this could be pushed up in the upcoming talks, given that in FTAs with Japan, Korea, and ASEAN, over 80 per cent of tariff lines were down to zero. Sources said the outer limit for a deal with the US, currently pegged at around October, could be brought forward, if fresh negotiations are positive. What complicates the equation for India is that the Chinese are at an advanced stage of negotiations towards a deal, which could have a favourable tariff rate and potential waivers on secondary tariffs, including possibly the tariff on account of Russian oil imports and the proposed 10 per cent BRICS tariff. China is currently faced with a 30 per cent tariff. From New Delhi's perspective, a deal needs to be clinched precisely for ensuring the gap in tariffs between India and China is maintained, even with a limited early-harvest type of deal. There is, however, greater receptiveness now within the policy circles to cut tariffs on some industrial goods, especially intermediate goods where there is the twin problem of high duties and an inverted duty structure (duty being higher on inputs than on final products). Alongside, there is a willingness to grant concessions in sectors such as public procurement and agri provided these are matched by the other side, like in the case of the UK deal. Also, India is willing to import more from the US, especially in three big-ticket sectors – defence equipment, fossil fuels and nuclear – to manage Trump's constant references to the trade gap, the sources said. Tariff rebalancing, if done right, could potentially offer an impetus to the economy, given that the biggest beneficiaries of tariff protection, especially the non-tariff barriers such as an increasing array of QCOs (quality control orders), are the big players. MSME units have been calling for these QCOs to be removed, especially in areas such as steel and textiles. Since 1991, New Delhi has gradually reduced its average tariff from nearly 79 per cent in 1990 to around 12 per cent in 2013, following which it has gone back up to 16-17 per cent by 2023. Sectors such as agriculture, dairy and automobiles, continue to be protected, even as the Ministry of Commerce and industry maintains that its trade measures are WTO compliant. Unlike its response during Trump's first term, where retaliatory tariffs were imposed, New Delhi has desisted from retaliating and is working on strategic concessions in sectors that the US is keen to target, while adhering to its own broad red lines. This involves areas symbolic of trade openness, including nuclear energy, fossil fuels and defence procurement. Think tanks such as Delhi-based Global Trade Research Initiative have said that by refusing to cross its red lines, particularly on agriculture, India has helped avoid 'the trap of a one-sided deal'. Once the official level discussions wrap up, there is a sense that a final call on the deal could come down to a conversation between the two leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump. This is especially so since it is Trump who is the trade negotiator-in-chief. For India, the best-case scenario would be to get a deal of some sort now, and then build on that in the future negotiations that could run into 2026, experts said. With Trump announcing the tariffs and penalties on India, that phone call could come in sooner, they said. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What Trump is actually doing — and why India needs to press reform & reset
FOR all the disquiet in Delhi over US President Donald Trump's sugar-uncoated remarks, his rough and ready tactics on trade, there needs to be a sobering acknowledgment of two realities: one, like it or not, tough tactics often win on the street in a world that's never stopped being an unfair place; and, two, Trump has prevailed. Most mainstream economists dismissed his approach, warning that his aggressive tariff regime would spell disaster for the US economy. Yet, four months after unveiling his first tariff chart on April 2—dubbed 'Liberation Day'— and his second on Friday, Trump has gained enough ground to claim a significant victory. Like a gambler, who believes he is on a winning streak, Trump is set to roll the dice for far more sweeping changes in the post-war global financial and technological orders. The US President's bilateral negotiations are being described as the 'Trump Round' of trade talks, echoing the major rounds of GATT and WTO negotiations that shaped global commercial order. With the exception of Canada and China, most countries refrained from retaliatory tariffs. Instead, they lined up outside the White House, eager to strike deals before the extended August 1 deadline. India was among the early partners to start trade talks but failed to close a deal. While many major economies and middle powers signed agreements on Trump's terms, India now finds itself in the company of Brazil, Burma, and Switzerland facing steep US tariffs. To its credit, Delhi did recognise trade as central to Trump's second-term agenda. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's February 13 meeting with Trump produced a joint statement affirming the goal of expanding bilateral trade to $500 billion and launching time-bound trade negotiations. India negotiated in good faith and continuously. But the gap between India's negotiating brief and Trump's maximalist agenda proved too wide to bridge. Trump's growing impatience was evident in a barrage of tweets targeting India, while senior administration figures—Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Senator Marco Rubio—spoke publicly about the President's 'frustration' with Delhi's posture. Frustration had also defined Trump's first-term trade engagement with India. Robert Lighthizer, Trump's former US Trade Representative, recounts in his book, No Trade is Free, how difficult it was to conclude even a modest trade agreement with Delhi. He placed the blame not on India's bureaucracy, but on the entrenched interests of the Indian capitalists that fiercely guard the barriers protecting them from external competition. Lighthizer revealed he kept files on top Indian tycoons—whom he labeled 'oligarchs'—to better understand Delhi's negotiating strategy. Trump's complaint about India's 'obnoxious' non-tariff barriers rings familiar. India's neighbours have long voiced similar grievances, although a lot more politely. Yet, the deeper issue may be Delhi's underestimation of the scale and ambition of the Trump Round. Trump's goal was not merely a new bilateral deal here or there, but a systemic overhaul of the global trading order constructed after the Second World War and revamped at the turn of the millennium. On the campaign trail and in office, Trump has argued that the international trade regime has failed the American people—and must be overturned. The strategy, often dismissed as irrational, had a logic of its own. Stephen Miran, Trump's economic adviser, argued in a paper written before the presidential election that Washington could exploit the global export dependence on the US market—and allies' reliance on US security guarantees—to rewrite the rules. Miran describes the post-war free-trade order as a political construct, in which US policy sacrificed domestic industry for Cold War geopolitical goals. He proposed replacing blanket multilateralism with 'strategic pluralism,' forging separate deals with different nations based on US leverage. Before taking over at the Treasury, Bessent, too, hinted at the broader potential of tariffs—not just to reshape trade, but to pressure states on energy, currency, and strategic alignment. For Bessent, Trump's strategy was about a grand rebalancing of the global economy in America's favour. Trump has not held back. He has used tariffs for a variety of objectives. He imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil to weaken President Lula and help his rival Jair Bolsonaro. He is threatening tariffs on Indian and Chinese oil imports from Russia and using economic leverage to push BRICS countries away from their loose talk on de-dollarisation. In the last four months, three core pillars of Trump's strategy have become visible: using tariffs to narrow trade and fiscal deficits; mobilising investment to reindustrialise the US; and compelling trade partners to buy American energy and goods. Even countries with minimal trade ties to the US have had to offer something of interest to the White House. Pakistan's offering was its allegedly 'rich' oilfields. The EU, Japan, and South Korea have made sweeping pledges, including tariff concessions, major investments, and hefty American purchases. Whether these commitments are realised is another question. But they have delivered the optics of victory that Trump craves. What India offered remains unclear—but evidently, it was not enough. If Delhi was unprepared for Trump's counter-revolution in trade, it now faces an even more profound challenge: coping with a broader transformation of the global financial and technological order. Trump is targeting the foundations of the old monetary system. His administration's embrace of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins promises to reinforce the dollar's dominance over the global system and the US ability to leverage it. At the same time, Trump is aggressively deregulating artificial intelligence. At a recent AI summit in Pittsburgh, he announced a sweeping new policy to promote American AI dominance—especially over China—and pledged to invest a significant share of the revenues secured through trade negotiations into AI-driven industrial renewal. Trump's vision of American resurgence hinges less on outsourcing work and insourcing labour and more on technological innovation to restore US industrial might. In short, Trump is not just renegotiating trade. He is leading a radical overhaul of American capitalism by reshoring key elements of the supply chains, promoting a national industrial policy, and investing in tech-centric manufacturing in the United States. As India resumes trade talks with the US later this month, it must recognise this historic moment in the evolution of the global economy. Any negotiating strategy premised on maintaining the status quo at home at a time of radical change abroad will leave India more vulnerable—not just to US pressure, but to the accumulating costs of missing a long-overdue internal economic transformation. This is a moment that demands India to focus on reforming its own economy to make it globally competitive and technologically agile. India owes this to itself – and to its future. (C. Raja Mohan is a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express)
