India's WHIF joins BRICS+ initiative, boosting MedTech innovation
The announcement comes at a significant moment as India prepares to assume the BRICS presidency in 2026. WHIF's inclusion marks a strong endorsement of India's MedTech capabilities and Visakhapatnam's emergence as a key hub for health innovation across the Global South. The forum's selection positions India not merely as a consumer of global technology but as a co-architect of next-generation healthcare solutions—designed, manufactured, and scaled in the Global South, for the Global South.
In a press release on Wednesday, AMTZ Managing Director and Founder CEO Dr Jitendra Sharma said, 'This selection confirms India's leadership in frugal innovation and system-ready technologies. WHIF's model, developed at AMTZ, bridges the Global South needs with world-class health tech capabilities. Partnering with the WHO and the Kalam Institute, which is a WHO Collaborating Centre, is a game changer.'
As a member of the BRICS+ Manufacturing Working Group, WHIF will help lead joint research and development corridors, expand cross-border access to India's advanced testing and manufacturing facilities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Trump's economic nationalism and its ripple effects on India and BRICS
U.S. President Donald Trump's latest announcement to impose a 10% tariff on BRICS nations, alongside a potential 200% levy on pharmaceutical imports, signals a dramatic shift in how the world's largest economy seeks to wield its influence. For India, which recently submitted a comprehensive trade offer covering goods worth $150-200 billion to the U.S., this rhetoric threatens not only the flow of exports but also the trust underpinning one of its most important economic partnerships. As global trade teeters on the edge of uncertainty, Mr. Trump's strategy to 'weaponise' tariffs is poised to reshape not only bilateral deals but also the foundational dynamics of multilateral blocs, such as BRICS. BRICS blowback President Trump's decision to target the BRICS bloc with a blanket 10% tariff is more than a fiscal policy — it is a symbolic strike against a coalition perceived to be challenging U.S. hegemony. BRICS, comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and newer entrants such as Iran, Egypt, and the UAE, has gained traction as a geopolitical alternative to Western-dominated platforms. The bloc's collective economic weight, accounting for nearly 32% of the global GDP and over 40% of the global population, has given it newfound assertiveness, including moves to settle trade in local currencies and reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar. The U.S. administration, viewing this as a threat, opted for aggressive tariff-based retaliation. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), total U.S. imports from the BRICS nations amounted to $886 billion in 2024, with China and India being the largest contributors. A 10% tariff on this volume would potentially generate over $88 billion in additional duties, effectively acting as a deterrent to BRICS expansion and dollar decoupling. India, as both a BRICS member and a strategic U.S. partner, finds itself in a delicate position — caught between bloc solidarity and bilateral dependence. Targeting India's export backbone Mr. Trump's rhetoric around a 'very, very high rate' of 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals directly strikes at the heart of India's export economy. India is the largest provider of generic drugs globally, with the U.S. being its most significant customer of these drugs. In the financial year 2024-25, India exported pharmaceuticals worth $9.8 billion to the U.S., a 21% increase from the previous year's, accounting for more than 30% of all Indian drug exports. The Indian pharmaceutical sector is not just a business; it is a lifeline for the American healthcare system, supplying affordable generics, vaccines, and essential medicines. A 200% tariff, if implemented, would drastically raise the price of Indian drugs in the U.S. market, disrupting supply chains and possibly triggering domestic drug shortages. Moreover, the impact would not be restricted to Indian exporters. American consumers, especially Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, may bear the brunt of price hikes. In States such as Texas, California, and Florida, which are major recipients of Indian pharma shipments, this move could have a ripple effect on the political landscape as healthcare costs soar. Whether this is a negotiating tactic or a serious policy shift is unclear, but the implications are severe. On the industrial front, India's $2 billion copper export sector, with the U.S. accounting for $360 million or 17%, is another casualty of this tariff-driven agenda. Copper, a critical component in technology and infrastructure, saw India regain export momentum after the reopening of capacities shut during the pandemic. A 50% tariff on copper will erode the competitiveness of Indian producers, particularly those in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, and shift demand to alternative sources, such as Chile or Peru. Between alignment and autonomy Trump's tariff threats, cloaked in the language of 'economic nationalism', mark a decisive shift from collaborative trade engagement to unilateral economic coercion by the U.S. For India, which has been walking a tightrope between its strategic autonomy within BRICS and its growing partnership with Washington, this development presents a critical diplomatic inflection point. New Delhi's recently tabled trade proposal, valued at $150-200 billion, now teeters in uncertainty as the White House weighs domestic populism against long-term global cooperation. India has made it clear that no further concessions are on the table, signalling a firm stance amid rising pressure. However, this stand-off reveals a deeper global reality: in today's geopolitical climate, trade is no longer merely transactional — it is a contest of power, alignment, and sovereignty. Should the U.S. proceed with its punitive tariff agenda, it may secure momentary tactical gains but at the cost of alienating key partners such as India, which is increasingly exploring alternative multipolar alliances. For BRICS, this aggressive turn by Washington could serve as a unifying catalyst, accelerating internal cohesion and driving a shift away from U.S.-centric trade frameworks. Ironically, by attempting to fracture the bloc's influence through tariffs, Trump may have strengthened its resolve and relevance. In weaponising trade, the U.S. risks not only isolating itself but also fuelling the very multipolar world order it seeks to resist. Vipin Benny is Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala, and the author of 'Elevating Excellence: The Relevance of Internal Marketing in Higher Education Institutions in India' (2023) and 'Decoded Decisions: Behavioural Finance Meets Artificial Intelligence' (2025). Views are personal
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
Tariff Tracker, July 14: Trump's latest tariff announcements, and the impact so far on the US
Dear reader, Last week, US President Donald Trump extended the pause on reciprocal tariffs on countries from July 9 to August 1. This was expected, given the sheer impossibility of concluding '90 deals in 90 days', as Trump originally promised in April. Over the past week, he also announced a new series of tariffs against 'foes' old and new. The onslaught began last Monday (July 7) as the United States levied tariffs of up to 40% on 14 countries, including longtime allies Japan and South Korea. In the following week, Trump announced 30% duties on imports from Libya, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Algeria, Mexico and the European Union. Canada faces 35% in duties, while all countries aligning with the 'Anti-American policies of BRICS', that is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa plus five nations, face 10% additional tariffs, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. Brunei and Moldova face 25% in tariffs, while the Philippines stands at 20%. Trump singled out Brazil for its 'witch hunt' against his close friend and former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, announcing 50% tariffs. He also announced a 50% tariff on Copper following a 'robust NATIONAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT', and promised to charge up to 200% tariffs on foreign drugs. The renewed tariffs are expected to become effective from August 1. Trump announced two sets of tariffs on April 2, which he dubbed 'Liberation Day'. These included a 10% baseline tariff on all trading partners, and country-specific rates on countries with which the US has maintained trade deficits. On April 9, he paused tariffs in the second category for 90 days, promising to complete 90 deals with 90 countries in this period. By then, he had already imposed punitive tariffs for fentanyl trafficking, at 25% on Mexico and Canada, and 30% on China, to pressure the trio into imposing stricter curbs on purported fentanyl trafficking. All three categories of tariffs have been challenged in court, as they were announced under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 1977 (IEEPA). The Act, which allows the president to bypass congressional approval, has typically been used to impose sanctions on countries which pose a national threat. We explained the legal challenge in the May 29 Tariff Tracker, while the court order described here has since been stayed. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC TARIFFS (Source: The New York Times. *Canada and Mexico were subjected to the 25% fentanyl tariffs, while Brazil only faced the 10% baseline rate and not a country-specific tariff.) Initially, the Trump administration entered into an ever-escalating trade war with China, which was the only country that announced its own retaliatory tariffs on the US. Trump's 10% fentanyl tariff on China in February, doubled a month later, failed to achieve its objective of nudging the Chinese side into talks. Instead, China announced countermeasures targeting Liquefied Natural Gas, coal, and farm machinery, among other products. The trade war escalated with the Liberation Day tariff announcements, which at their peak, saw US tariffs on Chinese products reach 145%, while China charged 125% tariffs. China also announced an elaborate licensing system to restrict exports of rare earth minerals, holding a global monopoly of sorts on their processing. It cited a national security risk behind the decision, and commentators have deemed it a significant leverage going forward. A notional truce was achieved on May 12 following representatives' talks in Geneva, but trouble arose as the US accused China of moving at a sluggish pace in exporting rare earths to the US. The Trump administration moved to restrict access to a range of products, chemicals, software and technologies critical for the Chinese manufacture of advanced chips and jet engines. Further talks resulted in a handshake agreement on June 11 in London, suggesting a return to the terms agreed by both countries on May 12. Details of the most recent agreement remain under wraps. And what are the sector-specific tariffs? Trump announced additional 25% tariffs on steel, aluminium and automobiles under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. These depend on a 2019 Commerce Department investigation calling these imports a 'national security' risk. Last month, he doubled the metals tariffs to 50%, a move he described in an executive order that would 'counter foreign countries' as they 'undercut the competitiveness' of American industries. The 'de minimis rule' was a shipping loophole that allowed Chinese exporters to sell goods, including clothes, directly to American consumers while bypassing tariffs, as long as they were priced below $800. Trump has also announced the following: * Tariffs on solar energy under Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, dating back to Trump's first term (2017-21). These are safeguard tariffs meant to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. * Section 301 tariffs on imports from China, punishing unfair trade practices. * Potential tariffs on pharma products and semiconductor chips under Section 232, pending an investigation into these industries. * 100% tariffs on films made outside the US. * A potential 25% duty on Apple if it continues to manufacture phones outside the US. Trump claims the tariffs have been a success. In a social media post dated July 8, he claimed that the tariffs have had 'ZERO IMPACT on Inflation', that 'Import Prices are actually DROPPING' and 'Tariffs are making our Country 'BOOM.'' As explained in previous editions of this tracker, the US President has been motivated by attempts to supposedly resolve the trade deficits the US maintains with several countries, describing this position as the US being 'ripped off' or 'subsidising' other countries. The Trump administration has also leaned on tariffs as a means to force countries to the negotiating table – Trump compared the US to a 'giant department store' in April, for which his administration will 'set the price' for countries seeking to do business with it. The reality, however, points to an inevitable path toward economic distress for American consumers. In its latest analysis dated July 11, the Yale Budget Lab noted that consumers currently face an overall average effective tariff rate of 18.7%, from 2.5% in January. The 18.7% rate is the highest since 1933, when the ill-fated Smoot-Hawley tariffs were in effect. If all the tariffs announced by the president become effective from August 1, the average tariff rate would rise to 20.6%, the highest since 1910, according to this analysis. However, one puzzling question has been how inflation has managed to remain muted, at 2.4% in June, even as the US Treasury collected a record $100 billion in customs duties and is projected to rake in $300 billion this year, according to a Fortune report. Economists have warned that the months to come could result in drastic price increases, with tariffs having only been in place for a short period. US importers have thus far borne the brunt of the tariffs, and it would be a while before these translated into higher consumer prices. The report also suggests the mass stockpiling of goods by big businesses ahead of the higher tariff rates becoming effective as another reason.
Mint
8 hours ago
- Mint
Brics+ could get the globe to work out a better-balanced world order
Gift this article At first there were four. Then five. And now eleven. Egypt, UAE, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have joined Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (collectively called Brics) in the newly expanded Brics+ group of nations. At first there were four. Then five. And now eleven. Egypt, UAE, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have joined Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (collectively called Brics) in the newly expanded Brics+ group of nations. Brics+ is an eclectic grouping of countries. It owes its conception to a Wall Street report written a quarter of a century ago about the initial four 'Bric' countries and the promise of their economic prospects, mostly driven by demographics. What began as a clubbing meant for global investors to focus on has since evolved into a formal alternative platform for countries to counter Western dominance of multilateral institutions. This makes it an important forum for a post Pax-Americana world, if you will. Also Read: Brics isn't an anti-US forum, it's a voice of the Global South The group is as notable for its differences as for its common purpose. Its members make up 49% of the world's population and 41% of global output (in purchasing power parity terms). In many ways, Brics+ is at par with the G-7 in economic importance. A few members are outright adversaries of the West, such as China, Russia and Iran. Others like India, Brazil, Indonesia and the UAE are keen to retain their flexibility to swing both ways. Only India recognizes China as a competitor; all others have sought to befriend China through this group or keep their relations with it and the West on an even keel. Until the latest meeting in Brazil, Beijing was gradually exerting greater influence on the group. Its dominance was clear in the group's recent expansion. With Russia's support, China overwhelmed Indian and Brazilian hesitation, which resulted in the addition of six countries and 'non-voting partnerships' with 10 other nations. Even though Beijing's rhetoric is nuanced, its objective is clearly to push Brics towards a more stridently anti-Western stance. The goal of India (and Brazil) is to keep an alternate channel open, but not be seen as 'anti-West.' This jockeying for influence will continue within the group, with China assured an edge by its deep trade relationships with all other members. Also Read: Brics isn't out to build a wall but serve the Global South The Brics+ group of countries met in Rio de Janeiro at its 17th summit. All 11 members were represented at the meeting for the first time. However, the heads of state of Russia and China did not attend in person. Vladmir Putin, president of Russia, could only attend virtually because there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest for war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court. The absence of China's President Xi Jinping was a bit puzzling, since this was the first time he has not attended a Brics summit meeting and had played a very visible role in the earlier summits held in Russia's Kazan and South Africa's Johannesburg. Now consider the positions taken by Brics. Group communiques have consistently supported a two-state solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict and an expansion of permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council to include India and Brazil. In the financial realm, the group has emphasized the need to increase quotas of the International Monetary Fund and the shareholding of emerging and developing countries in the World Bank. US President Donald Trump leaned into the current situation by threatening a 10% additional tariff on Brics+ countries for their supposedly 'anti-American' approach. Of course, the situation might change, but Trump's words provided common cause to the 11 nations to strengthen their resolve. Trump seems to be playing a delicate game of trying to weaken the dollar so that America can export more, but doing so without losing the extraordinary privilege that issuing the world's top reserve currency bestows upon the US. Trump's choice of instrument to achieve such a balance is a policy of import tariffs, which is a blunt tool in this context and could create a lot of unintended collateral damage. Pessimists argue that Brics+ only represents a platform for 'transactional multilateralism." In the absence of shared values, a grouping of diverse countries such as this will dilute their individual stands on sensitive issues and reinforce only whatever can achieve a group-wide consensus. There is already some evidence of this in the group's careful wording on the Ukraine conflict, the non-reference to Pakistan on Pahalgam, a dilution of the two-state idea for Israel and Palestine in response to Iran's objection and a soft-pedalling on South Africa's permanent Security Council seat. Also Read: Brics for India: A trade springboard, not an anti-West wall Can Brics+ survive all the differences among member nations? Will it remain relevant in a world that has watched older post-World War II multilateral institutions turn dysfunctional? Paradoxically, the answer appears to be 'yes.' Even though member nations seem to have very different reasons for being part of this club, Brics+ still offers each country some value. For India, membership offers a way to align with other emerging economies, demonstrate leadership of the Global South, exert extra pressure on the UN for a permanent Security Council seat and retain strategic autonomy. For many developing nations, particularly in Africa and Asia, very few means exist to voice themselves on the global stage (other than trade groups). Imperfect as it is, Brics+ is one of the few forums based neither on a military alliance nor trade ties. Its primary purpose is rooted in geopolitics, with geo-economics playing a secondary role. That's why, Brics+ will keep playing a significant role—at least until the world figures out a new order. P.S. 'Nothing endures but change," said Greek Philosopher Heraclitus. The author is chairman, InKlude Labs. Read Narayan's Mint columns at Topics You May Be Interested In
