"Great Leader": JD Vance Praises PM Modi During His India Visit
United States Vice President JD Vance on Monday said it was an "honour" to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi and called the PM a "great leader" on the first day of his India visit.
Vance also expressed gratitude for hosting his family at the PM's residence in New Delhi and said that PM Modi was "incredibly kind to my family."
Responding to PM Modi's post on X, the US Vice President wrote, "It was an honor to see Prime Minister Modi this evening. He's a great leader, and he was incredibly kind to my family."
It was an honor to see Prime Minister Modi this evening. He's a great leader and he was incredibly kind to my family.
I look forward to working under President Trump's leadership to strengthen our friendship and cooperation with the people of India! https://t.co/pCWmxcFjw8
— JD Vance (@JDVance) April 21, 2025
Vance further expressed willingness to strengthen friendship and cooperation between the two countries.
"I look forward to working under President Trump's leadership to strengthen our friendship and cooperation with the people of India!" Vance said.
PM Modi, after meeting Vance, said that both nations are committed to mutually beneficial cooperation in various sectors.
"Pleased to welcome US Vice President JD Vance and his family to New Delhi. We reviewed the fast-paced progress following my visit to the US and meeting with President Trump. We are committed to mutually beneficial cooperation, including in trade, technology, defence, energy and people-to-people exchanges," PM Modi wrote on X.
He also emphasised that India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership will be a "defining" partnership of the 21st Century for India and the world.
During the meeting, the two leaders reaffirmed the strength of the India-U.S. Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership and jointly launched the India-U.S. COMPACT (Catalyzing Opportunities for Military Partnership, Accelerated Commerce & Technology) for the 21st Century, which as described by a statement from US Vice President office is an "initiative anchored in mutual trust, shared interests, goodwill, and robust engagement of their citizens".
The two leaders also welcomed the progress in the negotiations for a US-India Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA). They formally announced the finalisation of the Terms of Reference for the negotiations.
"Vice President Vance and Prime Minister Modi welcomed significant progress in the negotiations for a US-India Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) and formally announced the finalization of the Terms of Reference for the negotiations, laying down a roadmap for further discussions about our shared economic priorities," said the statement from Vance's office.
It said BTA presents an opportunity to negotiate a new and modern trade agreement focused on promoting job creation and citizen well-being in both countries. The goal is to enhance bilateral trade and supply-chain integration in a balanced and mutually beneficial manner.
"Guided by their respective visions of 'Amrit Kaal for India' and 'Golden Age for America,' BTA is expected to create new opportunities of growth for workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs in both countries," the statement said.
The US Vice President, who is on a four-day official visit to India starting Monday, has arrived in Jaipur with his family for the second leg of his visit. Vance will visit Agra on April 23. The visit concludes with their departure from India on April 24 at 6:40 am.
The visit comes closely on the heels of a positive and successful meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi in Washington earlier this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
34 minutes ago
- India.com
The Milk India Refuses To Drink: Why ‘Non-Veg Dairy' Is A Red Line In Trade Deal With US
New Delhi/Washington: In the backrooms of New Delhi's diplomatic zone, trade officials kept circling one issue that simply would not move. It was not fighter jets, data servers or farm subsidies. It was milk. Yes, milk. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the India-U.S. trade pact is white, creamy and sacred to millions. And the problem lies not in how it is consumed, but how it is produced. Washington wants access to India's $16.8 billion dairy market, the largest in the world. It wants to sell its butter, cheese and milk powder to a country that churns out over 239 million metric tonnes of milk a year. But New Delhi is not opening that door. At the centre of India's resistance lies one demand – an assurance that the milk entering Indian homes comes from cows that were never fed meat, blood or animal remains. No exceptions. No compromises. Indian officials are calling it a red line. The idea of 'non-veg milk' does not sit well with millions of Indian households, especially vegetarians who see dairy as nutrition as well as ritual. Ghee is poured into sacred flames during prayer. Milk is bathed over deities. The concept of cows being fed pig fat or chicken remains crosses dietary boundaries and lines of faith. Trade experts struggled to explain this to Washington. 'Imagine eating butter made from the milk of a cow that was fed meat and blood from another cow. India may never allow that,' said Ajay Srivastava from the Global Trade Research Initiative in New Delhi. Despite U.S. claims that the concern is exaggerated, several American reports confirm the reality. A Seattle Times investigation documented how American cattle feed can legally include ground-up remains of pigs, horses and poultry. Even chicken droppings, known as poultry litter, sometimes make their way into the mix. The logic is economic – feed animals cheap and grow them fast. For Indian regulators, it is simply unacceptable. India's Department of Animal Husbandry mandates certification on all imported food items, including milk, to ensure no animal-derived feed is involved. This has long been criticised by the United States at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as a 'non-scientific barrier'. But for India, it is not about science but belief. In 2006, the Indian government formalised this belief in trade rules. It resulted into high tariffs – 30% on cheese, 40% on butter and a whopping 60% on milk powder. For countries like New Zealand or Australia, breaking into India's dairy space is nearly impossible. For the United States, it is a billion-dollar hurdle. India's dairy sector feeds over 1.4 billion people. It employs more than 80 million, many of them smallholder farmers. Cheap American imports, experts say, could collapse local markets. A report from the State Bank of India estimates an annual loss of Rs 1.03 lakh crore if U.S. dairy is allowed to flood in. That is nearly 2.5-3% of the country's entire Gross Value Added. And the risk is not theoretical. 'If American butter comes in cheap, our milk prices drop. What happens to the village woman who sells five litres of milk a day?' asks Mahesh Sakunde, a dairy farmer from Maharashtra. Meanwhile, Washington sees India's refusal to open up as 'protectionist'. But India's negotiators stood firm. 'There is no question of conceding on dairy. That is a red line,' said a senior Indian official. The United States exported over $8.2 billion worth of dairy last year. Gaining access to India's vast market could supercharge those numbers. But Indian officials are unwilling to allow milk from cows that ate meat to be offered at temple altars or poured into toddler cups. And so, while the two countries hammer out trade terms with hopes of reaching $500 billion in bilateral commerce by 2030, the dairy debate remains unresolved. It may seem like a small detail in a massive negotiation, but in India, this is sacred, culture and a line that will not be crossed.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Scoring with AI not enough to crack US enterprise code
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Indian artificial intelligence startups, which are making a beeline to the US to be close to customers, are taking longer to conclude deals and run pilots with US enterprises, amid rising competition and changing business landscape, founders and investors startups are looking at strategic partners and investors who have deep enterprise networks and can help them connect with potential customers, they told SaaS, where the market had evolved and people were buying, founders were able to get a couple of customers through emails and messages, but in the AI world, confusion is high even for buyers, Accel India partner Shekhar Kirani said. 'So, they need assistance at least for the next 12-24 months, when it becomes obvious that the products work.' Enterprise sales have always been hard and required the founders to work on-site to gain the last couple of years, AI has changed the landscape by drastically bringing down the time taken to develop a product. This has resulted in proliferation of AI platforms and applications, cluttering the market, increasing competition and changing the enterprise sales Ayyagari, cofounder, SnowMountain AI , an agentic AI platform for banking and financial services, said with AI coming in, the time taken to close the deals have increased significantly, with some companies going as far as getting into code-level discussions to gain trust from customers.'Earlier it would take 6-9 months to get a signalling from a company, if they are interested in the product or not. Now that is taking 12-18 months. Even getting demos is hard now,' he said. He explained that more often than not enterprises are running multiple pilots and are beginning to put new pilots on pause till they have Krishnan, founder of NuWare, a US-based IT services company, said during his conversations with the chief information officers of large enterprises in the US, he has found that they are often seeing over 20 companies that are selling similar products and hardly have time to have a demo with each of these Vivek Khandelwal, cofounder of agentic AI solutions startup CogniSwitch , was in the market for a security compliance product and said he was confused.'This market is equally miserable for buyers. We are at a point where we have to flip a coin and go with whoever it is, because there are so many products and everyone's messaging is exactly the same,' he went ahead with a company that was known to him. But he agrees that the market is Agarwal, cofounder of Raga AI, which offers an agentic workflow testing platform, said though building enterprise-quality products is tough, the field has become noisy, confusing the buyers as navigate this challenge, founders are looking to partner with investors and domain experts that can help with of SnowMountain AI said his company has partnered with domain experts such as former banking executives to get customers Abbey, founder of an AI startup catering to the banking and financial services companies, said she partners with strategic investors in the US that can make warm Krishnan, who also runs investment firm NuVentures, said they are helping their portfolio companies with customer introductions, which are now becoming critical and a key differentiator as companies look to break into enterprises in the Goyal, partner, Stellaris Venture Partners, said customer introduction is one of the most critical help portfolio companies need as they search for a product-market fit and early traction in an increasing competition for enterprise founders and investors are navigating a dynamic business landscape, there are other challenges as previous tech cycles, speed is the moat in AI, as the technology evolves at a rapid pace. This means startups need to iterate fast and that is one of the reasons founders are moving to the who was cited earlier, said she flies in and out of the US to be closer to customers and iterate Goyal said many enterprises are in a wait-and-watch mode as continued competitiveness of existing solutions is questionable with underlying technology evolving so rapidly. In addition, amid the uncertain macroeconomic environment, investments are being postponed; this presents a challenge as well.
Mint
44 minutes ago
- Mint
Why no one blows the whistle until a short-seller turns up
The reaction to US-based short seller Viceroy Research's scathing report on the Vedanta Group was as predictable as it was performative. The company, not surprisingly, called the allegations 'baseless". There was also the familiar barrage of nationalist rhetoric summed up by former Rajya Sabha MP and BJP national executive member Swapan Dasgupta, who tweeted: 'Is there a concerted attempt by dodgy US financial organisations to undermine India's corporates/financial institutions?" But strip away the outrage, and the uncomfortable question remains: why did it take a foreign short-seller to say what no one in India's financial ecosystem had the courage or incentive to? After all, as Vedanta's CEO Deshnee Naidoo admitted, the points raised in the report are not new and have been previously disclosed to shareholders. Viceroy's dossier alleges opaque structures, questionable related-party transactions, and fragile debt positions across the sprawling Vedanta empire. You don't need to agree with every bit of the report. The key issue is that in a market ecosystem populated by regulators, exchanges, research analysts and institutional investors, why was such scrutiny absent until a short-seller showed up? The discomfiting answer is the lack of incentives. Reviled they may be, but short sellers are among the few market participants who have a genuine incentive to unearth problems inside companies. Since they make money when stock prices of their target companies fall, they are financially motivated to find what others ignore. Their motives are certainly not altruistic, but they drive the kind of transparency and accountability that almost all other market players shy away from. Take the recent Jane Street saga. The US-based high-frequency trader was eventually censured by Sebi for allegedly fraudulent and manipulative trades in index options. Sebi's action came as a surprise, but Jane Street's actions were known and discussed widely for months before the regulator's action. Shankar Sharma, Veteran investor and founder of GQuant Investech, posed the obvious question: Why did the exchange not act earlier? His answer: "Simple conflict of interest…How can they sanction JS when it drives FO volume massively, hence SE profits." That's because when you trade F&O contracts on the NSE, you are charged a small percentage of the trade value as transaction fees. Sharma's critique strikes at the core of our market structure; when exchanges benefit from the very entities they are meant to police, enforcement becomes a question of convenience rather than principle. That's why independent, profit-seeking actors like short-sellers are necessary, even if they operate in the shadows. It is no accident that some of the most explosive corporate scandals like Adani in India, Wirecard in Germany and Luckin Coffee in China, were flagged first by short-sellers. In each case, insiders maintained a studied silence till the proverbial fecal matter hit the overhead fan. In each case, external watchdogs were too slow or too compromised. The dirty work was done by someone with skin in the game and a profit motive. Of course, short-sellers can be wrong. They exaggerate, cherry-pick and even manipulate. But their work, when rooted in data and grounded in fact, performs a critical function. They are often the only ones willing to publicly accuse a company of fraud — because they have the most to gain if they're right, and the most to lose if they're wrong. Could the questions that Viceroy posed to Vedanta have been asked by its independent directors? Or its bankers? Or rating agencies? Or large institutional shareholders (foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and domestic institutional investors (DIIs) who together hold over 27% stake in Vedanta Ltd)? Possibly. But the brutal truth is that for none of them did the risk-reward trade-off make sense. The vitriol aimed at Viceroy isn't anything new. Others who've dared to say the emperor is naked, have faced far worse. In June 2012, Canada-based Veritas Investment Research called out Anil Ambani-group company Reliance Communications (RCom) for its accounting practices and corporate governance, leading to significant a drop in the company's stock price. Here's how the telco responded to the charges: 'The Veritas report lacks any credibility and is malafide in intent and approach…The report is full of factual inaccuracies, and baseless allegations masquerading as research." By 2016, RCom was desperately trying to sell assets in a bid to pay off its ₹45,000 crore of debt. In February 2019, it filed for bankruptcy. In another 2011 report, Veritas called out Kingfisher Airlines for 'poor disclosures, capricious accounting policies and understated liabilities". The company dubbed the report 'mischievous and sensational". In 2012, Kingfisher ceased operations and faced bankruptcy proceedings. As for Veritas, it was forced to wind up its business in India in 2014 after Nitin Mangal, one of its analysts, was remanded in custody for his report raising accounting and governance issues at Indiabulls Financial Services, Indiabulls Real Estate and other group firms. Markets need naysayers as much as they need Yes men and women, because uncomfortable truths often come from those with a vested interest in revealing them. Until domestic institutions are more willing, and incentivized, to speak up, we should be careful of shooting the messenger and look at the message instead.
