KSDL to expand reach of products like Mysore sandal soap, gels into European markets
Bengaluru: The state-run Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (KSDL) plans to further expand the reach of products like Mysore Sandal Soap and shower gels into European markets, Minister for Large and Medium Industries M B Patil said on Wednesday.
The Minister said this during the British High Commissioner to India, Lindy Cameron, and Deputy High Commissioner for Karnataka and Kerala, Chandru Iyer's visit to KSDL. During their visit, they were briefed on the company's history, market reach, financial performance, and future expansion plans, the minister's office said in a release. 'KSDL currently exports its products to 23 countries. We now plan to further expand the reach of products like Mysore Sandal Soap and shower gels into European markets,' Patil said.
The cooperation from the UK would be helpful in achieving this goal, he was quoted as saying by his office in a release.
The minister, while recounting KSDL's origins, explained that the then Maharaja of Mysuru, Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wadiyar, had sent a representative to Britain to study the soap-making process.
The establishment of KSDL was later made possible through the efforts of the Maharaja and the visionary Sir M Visvesvaraya, he added.
Lindy Cameron noted that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the United Kingdom would benefit both countries and, by extension, industrial states like Karnataka.
'We should share expertise in ways that serve mutual interests without compromising our respective goals,' she said, according to the release.
During the visit, the UK officials were shown a live presentation highlighting KSDL's legacy
and achievements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world
In an era where geopolitical boundaries are blurred and warfare has morphed from trenches to tech, NATO 's recent commitment to invest 5% of GDP annually in defence by 2035 sends a thunderous signal—not just to adversaries, but to allies questioning the alliance's strategic relevance. The Hague Summit Declaration, adopted by 32 member states, marked a pivotal moment in transatlantic security thinking. The question now is whether this is a forward-looking strategy or a reactionary bulwark clinging to the past paradigms. At the core of the declaration lies an emphatic reaffirmation of Article 5—the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. However, the real headline is the proposed ramp-up in defence and security-related spending: 3.5% of GDP earmarked for traditional defence infrastructure and capabilities, and an additional 1.5% for resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and innovation. This is a fundamental reset of NATO's budgetary posture, reflective of a world no longer anchored to the certainties of post-Cold War peace. The strategic rationale behind this move is evident in the literature. From Russia's protracted war in Ukraine to hybrid warfare tactics deployed through cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, the threats facing the Euro-Atlantic region are no longer just physical; they are systemic. However, the implications of NATO's new doctrine stretch far beyond Europe. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo By including Ukraine's security under the umbrella of NATO's own, the alliance is signalling that Kyiv's stability is no longer peripheral—it is central to the European defence architecture. Although the declaration stops short of directly naming Russia as an aggressor, it unequivocally categorises it as a long-term threat. The political calculus here is clear: to maintain unity among diverse member states while advancing a credible deterrent posture. However, pledging 5% of GDP—especially in times of economic uncertainty, rising public debt, and shrinking fiscal room—will not be without domestic blowback. For many European countries, where defence budgets have long played second fiddle to social spending, the pivot will require not only financial reallocation but also political will. The path to 2035 will be fraught with parliamentary debates, economic trade-offs, and inevitable scrutiny from taxpayers questioning the utility of militarisation during peacetime. Live Events That said, NATO's blueprint smartly distinguishes between "hard power" and 'soft shield' spending. By allocating up to 1.5% for cyber defense , critical infrastructure, industrial innovation, and civil preparedness, the alliance acknowledges the multidimensional nature of modern warfare. Drones, AI, satellite technologies, and quantum encryption will define future battles. This is NATO's attempt to future-proof itself. Another compelling aspect of the declaration is its call to dismantle internal defence trade barriers and catalyse transatlantic industrial cooperation. The subtext? Europe's dependence on American defence systems must evolve into a mutual technological collaboration. With U.S. domestic politics becoming increasingly isolationist and polarised, especially in light of looming electoral uncertainties, Europe has no choice but to shoulder more of the strategic burden of NATO. The timing of this declaration cannot be ignored. This occurs at a time when questions are being raised about the longevity of American leadership and the cohesion of Western alliances. Populist politics, migration crises, climate-induced conflicts, and digital disruptions are redrawing the map of security concerns. In this light, NATO's 5% commitment is as much about deterrence as it is about staying relevant. However, for all its ambition, the declaration raises a philosophical question: can militarised investment alone secure peace in a world where most battles are fought in cyberspace, legislatures, and courtrooms? While NATO shores up its arsenal, adversaries weaponize currency systems, manipulate public opinion through AI-generated propaganda, and infiltrate supply chains. In such a scenario, defence must be defined not only by missiles and manpower but also by legal resilience, technological agility, and economic fortitude. In its closing remarks, the summit's declaration looks ahead—to Türkiye in 2026 and Albania thereafter. Symbolically, this eastward shift in NATO meeting venues reflects a changing strategic frontier. The frontlines are no longer confined to the Fulda Gap but extend into the Black Sea, Indo-Pacific, and digital cloud networks connecting us all. Ultimately, NATO's 5% pledge is more than just a budgetary item. It is a test of collective resolve in a fractured global order. If implemented wisely—with strategic clarity, equitable burden-sharing, and an eye on emerging threats—it could become a blueprint for securing liberal democracies in a multipolar, volatile world. But if the focus remains confined to tanks and treaties while ignoring the algorithmic and institutional battlefields of the 21st century, NATO risks building a fortress for yesterday's war The author is Department of Commerce, Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In an era where geopolitical boundaries are blurred and warfare has morphed from trenches to tech, NATO 's recent commitment to invest 5% of GDP annually in defence by 2035 sends a thunderous signal—not just to adversaries, but to allies questioning the alliance's strategic relevance. The Hague Summit Declaration, adopted by 32 member states, marked a pivotal moment in transatlantic security thinking. The question now is whether this is a forward-looking strategy or a reactionary bulwark clinging to the past the core of the declaration lies an emphatic reaffirmation of Article 5—the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. However, the real headline is the proposed ramp-up in defence and security-related spending: 3.5% of GDP earmarked for traditional defence infrastructure and capabilities, and an additional 1.5% for resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and innovation. This is a fundamental reset of NATO's budgetary posture, reflective of a world no longer anchored to the certainties of post-Cold War strategic rationale behind this move is evident in the literature. From Russia's protracted war in Ukraine to hybrid warfare tactics deployed through cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, the threats facing the Euro-Atlantic region are no longer just physical; they are systemic. However, the implications of NATO's new doctrine stretch far beyond including Ukraine's security under the umbrella of NATO's own, the alliance is signalling that Kyiv's stability is no longer peripheral—it is central to the European defence architecture. Although the declaration stops short of directly naming Russia as an aggressor, it unequivocally categorises it as a long-term threat. The political calculus here is clear: to maintain unity among diverse member states while advancing a credible deterrent pledging 5% of GDP—especially in times of economic uncertainty, rising public debt, and shrinking fiscal room—will not be without domestic blowback. For many European countries, where defence budgets have long played second fiddle to social spending, the pivot will require not only financial reallocation but also political will. The path to 2035 will be fraught with parliamentary debates, economic trade-offs, and inevitable scrutiny from taxpayers questioning the utility of militarisation during said, NATO's blueprint smartly distinguishes between "hard power" and 'soft shield' spending. By allocating up to 1.5% for cyber defense , critical infrastructure, industrial innovation, and civil preparedness, the alliance acknowledges the multidimensional nature of modern warfare. Drones, AI, satellite technologies, and quantum encryption will define future battles. This is NATO's attempt to future-proof compelling aspect of the declaration is its call to dismantle internal defence trade barriers and catalyse transatlantic industrial cooperation. The subtext? Europe's dependence on American defence systems must evolve into a mutual technological collaboration. With U.S. domestic politics becoming increasingly isolationist and polarised, especially in light of looming electoral uncertainties, Europe has no choice but to shoulder more of the strategic burden of timing of this declaration cannot be ignored. This occurs at a time when questions are being raised about the longevity of American leadership and the cohesion of Western alliances. Populist politics, migration crises, climate-induced conflicts, and digital disruptions are redrawing the map of security concerns. In this light, NATO's 5% commitment is as much about deterrence as it is about staying for all its ambition, the declaration raises a philosophical question: can militarised investment alone secure peace in a world where most battles are fought in cyberspace, legislatures, and courtrooms? While NATO shores up its arsenal, adversaries weaponize currency systems, manipulate public opinion through AI-generated propaganda, and infiltrate supply chains. In such a scenario, defence must be defined not only by missiles and manpower but also by legal resilience, technological agility, and economic its closing remarks, the summit's declaration looks ahead—to Türkiye in 2026 and Albania thereafter. Symbolically, this eastward shift in NATO meeting venues reflects a changing strategic frontier. The frontlines are no longer confined to the Fulda Gap but extend into the Black Sea, Indo-Pacific, and digital cloud networks connecting us NATO's 5% pledge is more than just a budgetary item. It is a test of collective resolve in a fractured global order. If implemented wisely—with strategic clarity, equitable burden-sharing, and an eye on emerging threats—it could become a blueprint for securing liberal democracies in a multipolar, volatile world. But if the focus remains confined to tanks and treaties while ignoring the algorithmic and institutional battlefields of the 21st century, NATO risks building a fortress for yesterday's warThe author is Department of Commerce, Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Global minimum tax: G7 endorses 'side-by-side' system replacing top-up levies; US, UK firms exempted
In a landmark development, the Group of Seven (G7) nations have agreed to exempt US-headquartered multinational corporations from key provisions of the global minimum tax agreement under a new "side-by-side" system. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now British businesses will also benefit from similar relief. As per news agency ANI, the new proposal, backed by the US and its G7 partners, will allow American firms to be taxed only domestically, on both foreign and local profits, rather than face additional top-up taxes overseas. The framework recognises existing US tax laws, specifically its domestic minimum tax, and offers a carve-out from the OECD's Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR). The G7 announcement, released by Canada, which currently holds the rotating presidency, said the system was intended to 'provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward.' The breakthrough came after the United States dropped Section 899, a controversial clause in US President Donald Trump's tax bill, which had proposed retaliatory taxes on foreign companies operating in the US. According to news agency Reuters, its removal paved the way for broader agreement and eased concerns in countries like the UK, where businesses feared exposure to punitive tax provisions. British finance minister Rachel Reeves welcomed the development and was quoted by Reuters as saying, 'Today's agreement provides much-needed certainty and stability for those businesses after they had raised their concerns.' Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Reeves also reaffirmed the UK's continued efforts to combat aggressive tax avoidance globally. The move follows concerns raised earlier this year after Trump pulled the US out of the 2021 OECD-brokered global tax deal through an executive order. That landmark agreement, supported by nearly 140 countries under the Inclusive Framework, had aimed to ensure large multinational companies pay at least a 15% tax rate globally. According to news agency AFP, Trump also threatened retaliatory taxes on countries applying the global rules to US companies, a step that created apprehension among international investors. With the Section 899 provision now withdrawn, the new dual-track solution reflects a broader consensus among G7 nations to preserve tax sovereignty while maintaining progress on tackling base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). The US Treasury said on X that this side-by-side approach would "preserve important gains made by jurisdictions inside the Inclusive Framework" and that it looks forward to developing this solution further through constructive discussions. The agreement now awaits further deliberation at the OECD level to determine how exemptions for US and UK firms will be formally recognised under the global tax regime. G7 leaders reiterated that the final solution must be "acceptable and implementable to all."
