Misaligned timings, domestic constraints hit talks: Lutnick | India News

TOI correspondent from Washington: In the wake of US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick’s claim on a podcast that the bilateral trade deal wasn’t signed as PM Modi didn’t call President Donald Trump, the Indian authorities have maintained that the deal could not materialise last summer due to the Trump administration’s insistence on lowering tariffs on farm and dairy products and demands for allowing genetically modified products, which are “no-go areas” for govt. With New Delhi not agreeing to Trump’s terms, US slapped a 50% tariff on Indian goods, citing Russian oil and defence imports, and has refused to move on fresh offers shared by India. Asked about the US president clearing a bill allowing up 500% tariff on countries importing Russian oil, MEA said India’s energy policy was guided by market dynamics and securing energy from diverse sources to meet its requirements. In the past, govt has said that it is open to higher energy imports from US to address concerns over India having a large trade surplus. Lutnick had said on the podcast that India “did not grab the opportunity the US presented” and waited too long to conclude negotiations, only to later seek terms comparable to those secured by UK. By then, he said, the moment had passed. At the heart of Lutnick’s explanation is what he called Trump’s “staircase” model of trade negotiations – a strategy designed to reward speed and decisiveness while penalising hesitation. The first country to conclude a deal gets the most favourable terms, setting a baseline subsequent agreements must exceed. Each new deal, Lutnick said, moves “up and to the right”, making later bargains more expensive or restrictive. “The first stair gets the best,” Lutnick explained. “After that, everyone says, ‘I want the UK deal.’ And the answer is no – they were first.” UK, he said, moved quickly. Lutnick recalled telling British officials they had “two Fridays” to finalise the agreement. PM Keir Starmer, he said, personally called Trump as the deadline approached, and the deal was announced within days. India was given what Lutnick described as three Fridays – a “shot clock (countdown timer)”. In that window, Trump signalled India could be next, a message Lutnick said was mea-nt to encourage urgency. “I said, you’ve got to have Modi call the president,” Lutnick recounted. “They were uncomfortable doing so. Modi didn’t call.” As the deadline passed, the administration moved on. Over the following weeks, Washington announced a series of trade deals across Asia, including with Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Those, Lutnick said, were negotiated at higher tariff and market-access levels than what India was offered, because the staircase had moved upward. When Indian officials later returned to the table, Lutnick said, they were seeking terms that no longer existed – effectively asking for a deal “in between the UK and Vietnam”, which would have between 15% and 20% tariff. “They said, ‘But you agreed’,” Lutnick recalled. “And I said, ‘Then – not now’.” Lutnick framed India’s predicament through an extended metaphor drawn from his early career as a trader, likening it to being stuck on the wrong side of a seesaw – a position where every move seems to make matters worse. Despite the sharp tone, Lutnick suggested the breakdown was not the result of hostility but of misaligned timing and domestic political constraints. He acknowledged trade negotiations are “deeply complex”, often requiring parliamentary approval and consensus-building that can slow decision-making. Still, he emphasised that the Trump administration had little patience for delay. “There are a lot of countries,” Lutnick said, “and each has its own deep internal politics. But the train doesn’t wait.” The episode underscores a shift in US trade policy under Trump, one that prioritises leverage, speed and visible wins over protracted negotiations. Lutnick portrayed the president as the ultimate “closer”, with himself as “table setter”. While Lutnick expressed confidence US and India would “work it out”, his remarks make clear any future agreement would come on less favourable terms. Trump, too, has not expressed any overt hostility towards India, insisting that the PM is a “great guy” and a “good friend”. (Inputs from New Delhi)