Is the ‘big and beautiful’ treatment in trouble?

Is the “large and beautiful” trade agreement with India-United States out of reach?

On the end of a deadline of July 9 established by the administration of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, the hopes of ensuring an interim commercial pact between Delhi and Washington remain alive but increasingly entangled in a difficult negotiation.

Despite the White House Secretary Karoline Leavitt Hinting that the agreement was imminent, and the optimistic statement of the Minister of Finance of India, Nirmla Sitharaman, that Delhi would welcome “a large, good and beautiful agreement”, in response to Trump’s statement that a commercial agreement with Delhi is approaching and “open” the Indian market: the negotiators are still locked in difficult discussions.

The key conflict points persist, particularly about agricultural access, automotive components and tariffs on Indian steel.

Indian commercial officials have extended their stay in Washington for another round of conversations, even when Delhi points out “Very large red lines” in agricultural and dairy protections, and the US presses for the wider openings of the market. The tone remains optimistic, but the window to reach an agreement seems to be narrowing.

“The next seven days could determine whether India and the United States are formed with a limited ‘mini-treatment or move away from the negotiating table, at least for now,” says Ajay Srivastava, a former Indian commercial official who directs the Global Commercial Research Initiative (GTRI), a group of experts based in Delhi.

This uncertainty depends on some key inflammation points, none more controversial than agriculture.

“There are two real challenges to conclude an initial agreement. First in the list is the access of the United States to the Indian market of basic agricultural products. India will need to protect its basic agricultural sector for economic and political reasons,” said Richard Rossoow, which tracks the economy of India at the Washington Strategic and International Studies Center, to the BBC.

For years, Washington has pressed for greater access to the agricultural sector of India, seeing it as an important market without exploit. But India has He protected him fiercelyciting food security, the livelihoods and interests of millions of small farmers.

Rossow says that “the second problem is the non -tariff barriers of India. Problems such as the growing set of ‘quality control orders’ of India (Qco) are significant obstacles for access to the US market and can be difficult to manage significantly in a commercial agreement.”

The United States has raised concerns about what calls the growing and burdensome import quality rules of India. More than 700 QCO, part of the impulse of “self -sufficient India”, aims to stop low quality imports and promote national manufacturing. They add Berry, a senior member of a group of government experts, Niti Aayog, has also described these rules as an “malignant intervention” that restricts imports and increases costs for medium and small -scale national industries.

The elephant in the room is agricultural exports. The agricultural trade of India-EE. UU. It is still modest at $ 8 billion, with India exporting rice, shrimp and spices, and the United States sends nuts, apples and lentils. But as commercial conversations advance, Washington is watching more agricultural exports (corn, soybeans, cotton and corn) to help reduce its $ 45 billion trade with India.

Experts fear that tariff concessions can press India to weaken their minimum support prices (MSP) and public procurement, key protections that protect farmers from price shocks by guaranteeing fair prices and stable crops purchases.

“No tariff cuts for dairy products or key food grains such as rice and wheat are not expected, where agricultural media are at stake. These categories are political and economically sensitive, which affect more than 700 million people in the rural economy of India,” says Srivastava.

Interestingly, a recent article by Niti Aayog recommends target cuts in imports of the American farm, which include rice, dairy, poultry, corn, apples, almonds and GM soybeans, under a proposed commercial pact of India -United States. However, it is not clear if the proposal reflects the official thought of the government or remains a policy suggestion on paper.

“If the United States said ‘without an agreement’ if India does not include access to basic agriculture, then clearly US expectations were not established correctly. Any democratically chosen government will have political limits for commercial policy options,” says Rossow.

So what could happen to the treatment now?

Experts such as Mr. Srivastava believe that the “most likely result is a limited commercial pact,” designed after the mini commercial agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom announced on May 8.

According to the proposed agreement, India can reduce tariffs in a variety of industrial goods, including cars, a long -standing American demand, and offer limited agricultural access through cuts and fees of rates in selected products such as ethanol, almonds, nuts, apples, raisins, avocados, olive oil, spirits and wine.

Beyond the tariff cuts, the United States is likely to push India for large -scale commercial purchases, from oil and LNG to Boeing aircraft, helicopters and nuclear reactors. Washington can also look for FDI flexion in multiple brand retail trade, benefiting companies such as Amazon and Walmart, and relaxed rules on manufactured goods.

“This ‘mini -trato’, if concluded, would focus on tariff reductions and strategic commitments, leaving broader TLC problems, including services, intellectual property rights (IP) and digital regulations, for future negotiation,” says Mr. Sr. Sr. Sr. Sr. Sr. says.

At first, the United Indian commercial conversations seemed to be based on a clear and fair vision.

“The two leaders (Trump and Modi) established a simple concept at their first summit this year. The United States would focus on manufactured goods that are capital intensive, while India would focus on items that have a lot of labor,” says Rossow. But things seem to have changed since then.

If the conversations fail, Trump is unlikely to restore 26% tariffs in India, experts believe.

While 57 countries faced these taxes in April, only the United Kingdom has ensured an agreement so far. Point to India specifically seem unfair. “Even so, with Trump, surprises cannot be ruled out,” says Srivastava.