She added that US demands for wider access to Indian agricultural and dairy markets pushed up against domestic sensitivities in India. Moreover, Trump reportedly wanted to bypass formal negotiating channels and deal directly with Prime Minister Modi—a move India resisted to preserve the integrity of talks conducted via the US Trade Representative (USTR).“Trump is exerting maximum pressure on India to get Modi’s attention,” said Biswal. “Modi may want to examine what Japan, the EU, and China did when they faced similar pressure: keep calm, retaliate if you must, but always keep the channel open. The real tragedy would be if both sides walk away from a big win.”According to Indo–US trade expert Basant S. Sanghera, the failure to clinch a final deal was disappointing but not entirely unexpected. He outlined three major factors behind the collapse: first, India proposed a reciprocal tariff in the 13–15% range, aligning with rates negotiated by countries like Japan and Vietnam. However, the US allegedly insisted on a 20% baseline, which India found unfeasible as it seeks to attract global manufacturers and offer competitive trade terms. Second, the US demand for more access to India’s agriculture and dairy sectors was met with some concessions, but not to the extent Washington wanted. These sectors remain politically sensitive in India. And third, with national elections on the horizon and growing economic nationalism, Prime Minister Modi had limited leeway to offer deeper concessions. Any perception of yielding too much could be politically damaging.Sanghera emphasised that while the missed deadline of 1 August is a setback, the broader Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) is still in motion. “Negotiations are continuing, and a USTR team is expected in New Delhi in August. There is still room to reach a breakthrough, possibly timed with the Quad Leaders’ Summit this autumn,” he said.He suggested that early progress in parallel strategic areas could help cushion the relationship and maintain momentum. These include finalising the 10-year US–India Major Defense Partnership Framework, progressing on India’s nuclear liability reforms, and formally launching the Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology (TRUST) initiative.While the setback is significant, experts caution against reading it as a sign of deteriorating India–US ties. Rather, it reflects the complex, transactional nature of trade diplomacy under the current US administration. Both governments continue to value the strategic partnership, and the foundation remains strong. However, failure to reach an agreement could have economic consequences for both sides—especially for US businesses hoping to expand in India and for New Delhi’s ambition to position itself as a manufacturing alternative to China.
Source link
