Modi's 'Act East Policy' Requires Him to In Fact 'Act' at Home
Anybody who knows anything about the way politics works in this country would have known that US president Donald Trump's 9 July deadline for a US –India free trade agreement was unrealistic. While Union commerce minister Piyush Goyal and his officials have logged many flying miles travelling between New Delhi and Washington DC, it was only inevitable that in the end Mr. Goyal would say that India does not make trade deals based on deadlines. It would do so only on the basis of the national interest.
While a deal may yet be struck at the eleventh hour and Mr. Goyal's tactics may pay off, it will be a politically risky gamble given that the Monsoon Session of Parliament is just two weeks away. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will find it difficult to commit to a trade deal with a maverick and unpredictable US president without exposing himself to criticism at home.
While President Trump has promised a 'win-win' deal, he is now known to interpret every deal as a win for his 'America First' strategy. However balanced a trade deal might be between India and the US, in the competition between Mr. Trump's 'America First' and Mr. Modi's 'India First', the political Opposition in India would have enough to go to town accusing the Modi government of once again 'surrendering' to President Trump's diktat.
Just as the BJP opposed trade deals signed by the Manmohan Singh government, the Congress and Left parties would oppose whatever deal India strikes with the United States, especially in the present context. The context is important. The Modi government is still pushing back on criticism that it agreed to a ceasefire with Pakistan under pressure from President Trump. It can ill afford to be seen as buckling under pressure on the trade front. The stakes are high.
It is not just the criticism from the political Opposition that would worry the Modi government but, even more so, the criticism from within its own support ranks. Even on trade policy, there are as many protectionist hawks within the Sangh Parivar as there are in the Opposition.
Given the difficulties associated with declaring victory on a trade deal with the United States, the Modi government had no option but to place the trade negotiations on the back burner. There can be no movement forward until the Monsoon Session of Parliament is over.
A larger challenge stares India's trade negotiators in the face. Ever since the early 1990s, when India opted to enter into a multilateral trade agreement, the government has zealously defended the country's status as a developing economy. India signed on to the membership of the World Trade Organisation after being assured that, along with other developing economies, it would receive 'special and differential treatment' (SDT). India remains a protectionist economy by Asian standards.
There was a time, during the tenures of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the Manmohan Singh governments, when India would declare that the objective of its trade policy was to bring India's tariffs down to 'ASEAN levels'. This objective has never been restated by the Narendra Modi government, which has in fact raised tariff barriers across many product lines over the past decade. India's trade partners have been protesting all along, and in President Donald Trump they have found a strong advocate of their grievances.
There is, therefore, a two-fold problem for Prime Minister Modi with respect to trade and tariff policy. On the one hand, he remains under pressure from within the ranks of the Sangh Parivar to stick to a more protectionist stance. There are many reasons put forward to justify this.
On the other hand, the world outside says that if India is indeed in its 'Amrit Kaal' and is the world's fourth or third largest economy and on its way to becoming 'Viksit Bharat' and is a 'rising power', a 'leading power', and so on and so forth, then why behave like a low-middle-income developing economy seeking 'special and differential' treatment?
The argument for protecting the agrarian economy and the interests of farmers stands on an altogether different foundation. The highly developed economies of Europe and Japan have defended trade protectionism in agriculture on cultural, social and political grounds. The protection of farmers and the farming economy and the cultivation of local varieties of various products is a legitimate policy objective.
India stands on firm ground in rejecting an open-ended policy of trade liberalisation in agriculture. If the United States continues to insist on this front, the Modi government will have no option but to reject and resist all pressure. Neither India nor Japan can agree to trade liberalisation in farm produce without risking a domestic political backlash. The protectionist argument in the case of manufactured goods is, however, much weaker.
A policy option that can be pursued would be for the government to come out with a timetable for trade liberalisation and tariff reduction, setting firm dates for sectors, and gradually allowing the rupee to depreciate to partly compensate for tariff cuts. This would be in tandem with the earlier and oft-repeated promise of bringing Indian tariffs 'down to ASEAN levels'. This is a long-stated goal and is one that should be implemented.
Rather than berate the ASEAN countries and call them the 'B-team' of China, as Mr Goyal has ill-advisedly done, it is time India caught up with ASEAN on the trade and manufacturing fronts. It may be recalled that India's trade and industrial policy liberalisation began in the early 1990s inspired by the experience of ASEAN.
It was after his visit to Malaysia that the then prime minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh tasked an official in the Prime Minister's Office, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, to come up with a roadmap that would enable India to catch up with Malaysia. Mr Ahluwalia's 'M Paper' was the result and formed the basis of Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao's trade and industrial policy. The time has come again for India to 'catch up' with East and Southeast Asia as far as trade and industrial policies are concerned. Mr Modi's 'Act East Policy' requires him to in fact act at home.
This article was originally published in Deccan Chronicle. It has been lightly edited for style.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
22 minutes ago
- Hans India
Assam CM launches ‘Mission BTR', claims Congress has ‘no foothold' in Bodoland
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma kicked off a five-day tour of the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) on Monday, unveiling the BJP's ambitious "Mission BTR" to bolster development and party support ahead of the upcoming Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) elections. Addressing a massive rally at Green Field in Kokrajhar, the BTR headquarters, Sarma exuded confidence in the BJP's dominance in the region, declaring, "Congress has no presence here. Congress belongs in Pakistan." The remark drew loud cheers from the crowd, signalling the BJP's aggressive stance as the election season approaches. Sarma highlighted the BJP-led government's success in restoring stability in BTR following the 2020 BTR peace accord. "The last five years were about establishing peace - no encounters, no bomb blasts. The next five years will be about all-around development for every community," he asserted. Emphasising the party's electoral ambitions, he added, "We are not here to lose. We are here to win for peace, development, and the welfare of BTR's people." The rally, attended by state BJP chief Dilip Saikia, Minister Ashok Singhal, and several BTC leaders, underscored the party's focus on consolidating its base in BTR. Sarma outlined a two-pronged strategy: securing victory in the BTC polls and gearing up for the 2026 Assam Assembly elections. "After BTC, we will shift full focus to 2026. Our goal is clear - to form the government again," he said. Later, Sarma chaired a review meeting at the Kokrajhar District Commissioner's office to assess the implementation of state welfare schemes, reinforcing the BJP's development-centric agenda. With "Mission BTR," the BJP aims to position itself as the region's primary force for stability and progress, leaving little room for opposition parties in its political calculus.


Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Politics isn't rocket science: The reason Elon Musk cannot hurt Donald Trump right now – and is unlikely to do so in the future
A CNN analysis – an organisation that is equally berated by break-up bros Donald Trump and Elon Musk – summed up the current impasse, or Musk's inability to dent Trump, with the line: 'Politics isn't rocket science. If it were, President Donald Trump might have something more to worry about in his reignited feud with his estranged 'first buddy' Elon Musk. ' A few months ago, right after Trump reclaimed the White House, he couldn't stop gushing about his friend Elon. When SpaceX's Starship booster landed back on its chopstick arms after a test flight, Trump said at a campaign rally: 'Did you see the way that sucker landed today? That's the greatest thing I've ever seen. Elon is an absolute genius – nobody else could ever do that.' In 1952, Israel offered its presidency to Albert Einstein. The man who split the atom and redefined the universe's laws could have been a ceremonial head of state. Einstein declined, saying he lacked 'the natural aptitude and experience to deal properly with people.' Politics, he knew, isn't rocket science or quantum mechanics. And that's the rub. The greatest physicist of modern history turned down politics. Elon Musk, who fancies himself the Einstein of our era, is now discovering why. Musk and Trump: Rockets, Casinos, and the Art of Betrayal Elon Musk and Donald Trump were never meant to be friends for long. One built his empire launching rockets into orbit and cars down highways; the other built his by branding steaks, casinos, and tower facades with his name. For months, they operated as allies of convenience: Musk bankrolled Trump's 2024 re-election with nearly $300 million, and Trump rewarded him with sweeping powers as head of the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a role so absurd it sounded like a Shiba Inu meme come alive. Musk appeared in the Oval Office in February wielding a chainsaw on stage at CPAC to symbolise the slashing of government bloat. For a while, it worked. Trump basked in the billionaire's adulation, Musk relished the keys to the kingdom, and together they created an unholy tech-populist fusion that made Wall Street swoon. Then came the 'big, beautiful bill.' Trump pushed through his MAGA megabill – an infrastructure-cum-tax-cum-spending package that ballooned the deficit. Musk, who once championed balanced budgets and deflationary discipline, called it a 'disgusting abomination.' He threatened to primary every Republican who voted for it and set up a new political party – the America Party – to punish the betrayal. Trump, in turn, branded Musk as 'off the rails,' warning that third parties never succeed and only create 'disruption and chaos.' Their bromance shattered into a predictable feud driven by ego, ideology, and billions in threatened EV subsidies. Third Parties in America: History's Graveyard of Outsiders Trump is not wrong about history. Third parties in America are where political ambitions go to die. Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose insurgency in 1912 split the Republican vote, handing Woodrow Wilson the White House. George Wallace's segregationist campaign in 1968 won five states but ended with Nixon's landslide. Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire, won 19% of the popular vote in 1992 on a balanced budget platform but zero electoral votes. Ralph Nader's Green Party in 2000 siphoned just enough votes in Florida to swing the presidency to George W. Bush. America's first-past-the-post electoral system punishes split tickets. Ballot access is a bureaucratic labyrinth. Media gatekeeping and debate exclusions freeze out challengers. And the 'spoiler effect' haunts voters who might agree with a third party's ideals but fear wasting their vote. These structural barriers have buried every insurgent from the Socialist Eugene V. Debs to the Libertarian Gary Johnson. Musk's venture risks the same fate. Politics isn't rocket science. If it were, Trump might have something to worry about. But as CNN's analysis put it: 'Nothing in the explosive and now-soured flirtation of the world's richest man with politics suggests he has the magic touch to spark the kind of creative disruption in the Republican Party that he set off in the orbital and electric vehicle industries.' Why This Isn't Ceteris Paribus: Musk's X Factor Yet Musk is not a normal third-party candidate. He has two weapons no one in history possessed simultaneously: 1. Limitless Money – Musk spent nearly $300 million in 2024. That's more than Perot spent in inflation-adjusted dollars. His war chest can bankroll national petition drives, recruit insurgent candidates, and saturate swing states with advertising until the last undecided voter dreams of dogecoin. 2. The World's Largest Media Platform – Musk owns X (Twitter). Roosevelt needed newspapers, Perot needed paid infomercials, Wallace needed the Deep South's racial demagogues. Musk has 500 million monthly active users and algorithms he personally controls. He polled his followers about forming the America Party; 1.2 million voted in hours, 65% saying yes. If politics is narrative warfare, Musk owns the battlefield. His reach is unmatched. Trump's Truth Social has under 10 million monthly users. Musk has over 210 million followers himself. The asymmetry is stark. In 2016, Trump was the insurgent meme-lord on Twitter. In 2025, Musk is the overlord of X, able to amplify, censor, or bury discourse at whim. But Does He Have a Political Base? This is Musk's existential problem. As CNN noted: 'Beyond the tech world, where he used his rock star status to funnel young, disaffected male voters toward Trump, it's not clear that Musk has a broader constituency.' Musk's online fandom is massive but shallow. Tesla owners love his cars, not necessarily his politics. SpaceX fans marvel at his rockets, not his fiscal conservatism. The MAGA base is cult-like in its loyalty to Trump. Even Vice President JD Vance – once touted as a Musk ally – chose Trump when forced to pick sides. Pollster Lee Carter put it bluntly to CNN: 'Donald Trump is the one that has the huge following. Elon Musk certainly helped Donald Trump in the election… but it wasn't Elon Musk who was center-stage and I don't think that we're going to see people follow Elon Musk in the same way that we saw with the MAGA movement.' Musk's Political Failures So Far If politics were rocket science, Musk's orbital genius would be unstoppable. But his forays suggest otherwise. His most prominent individual foray – the Wisconsin Supreme Court race – was a fiasco. Musk poured millions behind a conservative candidate, only to watch her lose by 10 points. Voters recoiled from his intervention. Tesla's stock has slumped as Musk's brand becomes increasingly partisan, alienating Europe's EV market. His tenure as DOGE chief was theatrically underwhelming. The chainsaw he brandished at CPAC to symbolise cost cuts ended up symbolising something else entirely: the severing of his relationship with Trump. Trump's Fortress GOP The Republican Party remains Trump's fortress. For a decade, he has purged dissenters and fused his brand into its DNA. He turned a mainstream conservative party into an ethno-nationalist, populist machine with himself as the sun around which all orbit. Musk's America Party threatens to be the Bull Moose Redux – siphoning votes from Republicans, helping Democrats win, but never seizing power. Trump knows this. That's why he dismissed Musk's gambit with scorn rather than fear. But Musk's goal may not be to dethrone Trump. It may be to outlast him. At 53, Musk is decades younger. If Trump's empire crumbles – through scandal, age, or electoral defeat – Musk could inherit a disillusioned conservative base seeking a new anti-establishment saviour. The Einstein Principle Albert Einstein declined Israel's presidency because he knew genius in physics doesn't translate to political dexterity. Musk might yet learn the same lesson. Rockets obey gravity and thrust. Politics obeys no laws but human loyalty, prejudice, memory, and fear. Even if Musk builds the America Party into a disruptive force, he cannot run for president. The Constitution forbids foreign-born citizens from holding the office. He would need a surrogate – a puppet candidate with the charisma to galvanise voters, the obedience to follow Musk's script, and the moral flexibility to survive in politics' mud. Finding such a creature is as improbable as landing a rocket booster upright on a floating barge. But then again, Musk did that. As Trump himself once exclaimed at a rally after a Falcon Heavy landing: 'Did you see the way that sucker landed today?' Today, Trump's view has changed. He threatens Musk with executive retribution. 'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,' he warned ominously, suggesting presidential power could be wielded to crush Musk's companies. In any other era, such a statement might trigger impeachment hearings. In the Trump era, it was Tuesday. The Final Equation Politics isn't rocket science. That is both Trump's salvation and Musk's curse. History suggests Musk's America Party is unlikely to dethrone Trump. But history also shows third parties can wound. Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose handed the presidency to Wilson. Ross Perot arguably handed it to Clinton. Ralph Nader gifted Florida to Bush. If Musk siphons just 3–5% of Republican voters, he could hand Democrats the House in 2026 or the presidency in 2028. Trump calls Musk 'off the rails.' Perhaps. But when a rocket goes off the rails, it doesn't just crash – it explodes, taking everything nearby with it. Einstein refused power because he understood its limits. Musk craves it because he doesn't. That difference may doom his political ambitions – or make them the most dangerous third-party experiment in American history. After all, politics isn't rocket science. If it were, Elon Musk would already be president. If he wasn't South African.

The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
50th anniversary of Emergency will sensitise next generation to dark days of democracy, says Joshi
Union Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Pralhad Joshi has said that the 50th anniversary of the Emergency declared in the country by the then Prime Minister late Indira Gandhi is being observed to sensitise the next generation to the dark days of democracy in the country's history. He was speaking at a 'Viksit Bharat Sankalp Sabha' and remembrance of the 50th year of the struggle during Emergency organised by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Dharwad on Sunday evening. 'Emergency was imposed on June 25, 1975 by Indira Gandhi who ruled for 21 months without Constitutional and moral authority. During that time, protests were suppressed, many protestors were imprisoned and several people lost their lives,' he said. 'Indira Gandhi was accused of misusing her power during the elections by Raj Narain who took the matter to court. Justice H.R. Khanna of the Allahabad High Court delivered the verdict in that case. That judgment copy is not available anymore,' he said. Mr. Joshi said that while the former Prime Minister late Jawaharlal Nehru initiated the first Constitutional amendment, his daughter Indira Gandhi later made several amendments, including Articles 38, 39, and 42. He said that having imposed Emergency on the people and making them suffer, the Congress is now claiming that the Constitution is in danger. The Union Minister said that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the country has developed immensely in the last 11 years and become the fourth largest economy in the world. The former judge S.H. Mittalkod presided over the event. Hubballi-Dharwad Mayor Jyoti Patil, the former MLAs Amrut Desai and Seema Masuti and a host of municipal councillors and BJP leaders were persent.