Do it yourself

The US administration has imposed a 25% penal tariff on the goods imported from India, with few exceptions. The reason cited for this penal action is continued import of crude oil from Russia by the Indian refiners, despite the US administration insistence that sales proceeds from such oil sales are being used to finance the Russian war on Ukraine. These tariffs are over and above the MFN tariffs prevalent prior to 7th August 2025, and 25% reciprocal imposed with effect from 07th August.

Considering the exemption for several items that are critical for the US supply chains, e.g., mobile phones, certain metal items, pharma, semiconductors, energy etc., the effective tariff rates on Indian exports to the US are estimated to be ~33%.

India has termed this penal action “unfair, unjustified, unreasonable”. The public stance of the Indian government is that buying Russian oil is critical for our energy security, and it is our prerogative to decide from where to buy. 

Considering the current seemingly inflexible stance of both the parties on this issue, it would not be unreasonable to assume that these penal tariffs may stay, at least for a few more months, till a breakthrough in trade talks is achieved. Reportedly, the Indo-US bilateral trade talks are continuing and the negotiators are hopeful that a bilateral trade agreement (BTA) may be achieved in the next few months.

However, assuming the worst case (penal tariffs stay for a longer term than presently estimated), the repercussions could be serious for the Indian economy, in general, and exporters in particular. Some of the consequences of sustained penal tariffs could be listed as follows. Please note that these are based on worst case assumptions and not a base case.

Capital and jobs drain: If the penal tariffs sustain, a large number of SMEs, catering mostly to the US demand, especially in sectors like textile, jewelry, carpet, could think of relocating their manufacturing base (fully or partially) to a more tariff friendly jurisdiction like UAE, Oman, Egypt etc. This would result in material capital outflow and loss of jobs for local workers.

Job losses and labor migration: The loss of business due to lower exports to the US is likely to affect the labor-intensive SME sector the most. Various estimates are suggesting a loss of over one million manufacturing jobs directly. There could be material secondary job losses also as exporters scale down their businesses and workers migrate to their native places. This could adversely impact the already struggling private consumption growth and household savings.

Capital controls: India has traditionally run a trade surplus with the US. Loss of exports to the US market, may erode this surplus, adversely impacting the overall trade balance of India. To manage this widening of trade deficit, the government might consider, like it did in the 2013 BoP crisis, imposing some capital controls like reducing limits under LRS remittance, capital investments (outbound FDI) through automatic route, etc. It may also consider liberalizing rules for FDI in sectors like retail trade, increasing competition for the local businesses.

Uncertainty over pharma and services: As of now, pharmaceuticals and services are not covered by the reciprocal and penal tariffs. These two together form ~45% of total Indian exports to the US. If the two sides are unable to find a solution to the current impasse, the US may consider imposing some tariff or non-tariff barriers on pharma and services also. Though not on the board this morning, in the back of minds it must be bothering many entrepreneurs and investors. Even the global corporations making large investments in setting up GCCs in India, would be mindful of this risk and slowdown their future investment plans.

India+1: Presently, it may not be viable for a lot of American importers to immediately replace Indian imports with other countries. However, to mitigate a long-term risk, American importers might explore developing vendors in other countries, even if it costs a fraction higher. This clouds the long-term prospects of export growth for the Indian vendors, even if the present tariff impasse gets resolved in the next few months.

Wider sanctions: To increase pressure on India, the US administration may enhance the scope of penal tariffs to non-tariff restrictions (effectively sanctions like 1998) to include sale of critical defense components, and technology transfer agreements etc. This may adversely impact, for example, the plans to develop local fighter jets and develop a local semiconductor ecosystem.

Remittances: Sanctions and/or fear of sanctions can materially affect remittances from the US to India. On the positive side, many NRIs can accelerate their remittances to preempt remittance tax, restrictions on remittances to India or freezing of assets on some convoluted pretext (This has already happened with Russians and Iranians). On the negative side, VISA restrictions, cancellation of Green cards and H1Bs etc., may impact remittances adversely to some extent.

Uncertainty for tech workers and students: For the past many years, India has sent the largest number of tech workers and students to the US. Escalation in trade conflict could impact this trend adversely. Moreover, dark clouds of uncertainty may engulf the workers and students already present in the US or planning to travel to the US in near term. There are already reports of several Indian students (present and prospective) suffering from extreme stress and depression.

Rise in Chinese threat: To mitigate the impact of the US tariffs and potential sanctions, the Indian government has already enhanced its engagement with the Chinese government and businesses. Reportedly, India has shown inclination to relax several restrictions on the Chinese businesses, capital and products. This is in spite of the past history of mistrust and deceit, and recent Chinese participation (against India) in Operation Sindoor. A liberal access to the Chinese capital and technology might seriously compromise the security of the country; and potentially create a gulf between the government and defense establishment.

I am definitely not suggesting that the government of India should accede to the unfair and unjust US demands and sign an unfavorable trade agreement. I have just listed some pointers for adjusting investment strategy, should things take a turn for the worst.

In his Independence Day speech, the prime minister announced that his government has proposed comprehensive reforms to the extant Goods and Services Tax (GST) structure. The proposals have been reportedly sent to the Group of Ministers (GoM). Two Groups of Ministers (comprising representatives of the State governments) — one on rate rationalization and another on compensation cess — will have to approve the proposals before they go to the GST Council for approval. The central government is quite confident that the GST Council members shall approve the proposals promptly, and it could be implemented before the forthcoming festival season. The stated objectives of the proposed GST reforms, focus on simplifying the tax system, reducing the tax burden, and promoting economic growth.

Based on the publicly available information, the key highlights of the proposed GST reforms are as follows:

Structural Reforms

Correct inverted duty structures to align input and output tax rates, reduce input tax credit accumulation and support domestic value addition.

Resolve classification disputes by streamlining rate structures to minimize disputes, simplify compliance, and ensure equity and consistency across sectors.

Provide long-term clarity on rates and policy direction to enhance industry confidence and support better business planning.

Rate Rationalization

Simplify the GST structure by reducing the current four slabs (5%, 12%, 18%, 28%) to a two-slab system (5% and 18%), with a special 40% rate for luxury and sin goods like tobacco and online gaming.

Lower taxes on essential and aspirational goods (e.g., refrigerators, air conditioners, packaged food, medical items) to enhance affordability, boost consumption, and make these goods more accessible, particularly for the common man, middle class, women, students, and farmers.

Maintain current tax incidence on sin goods (e.g., tobacco at 88%) by subsuming compensation cess into a uniform 40% rate after its expiration.

Ease of Living

Simplify compliance processes, particularly for small businesses and startups, through seamless, technology-driven, and time-bound registration.

Introduce pre-filled returns to reduce manual intervention and mismatches.

Ensure faster, automated refund processes for exporters and those affected by inverted duty structures to cut delays and build trust in the system.

Markets welcome the proposals

The Indian equity markets reacted to the proposal with enthusiasm. Despite lingering uncertainties over implementation of penal tariffs from 27^th August 2025, benchmark indices gained ~1.5%. The sectors expected to be directly benefiting from the lower incidence of GST, e.g., automobile, white goods, FMCG, insurance, cement, retail trade etc. witnessed strong buying. After almost seven weeks of sideways to weak market movement, it was a pleasant scene to witness.

In my view, the proposed GST reforms, in conjunction with the lower incidence of income-tax, expected pay commission benefits from the current fiscal year, good monsoon leading to improved rural income, stable prices, lower rates and adequate liquidity in the system shall support the Indian equity markets, especially the consumption (also see here), a sector which has been struggling for some time. Nonetheless, it would be in order to exercise some caution and not get overexcited by the GST proposals.

In particular, the traders might want to suitably factor in the following considerations in their expectations:

·         GST restructuring may be overall revenue neutral, implying that net impact of the GST rate rationalization may not be significant. For example, some 5% items can go to a higher slab of18% and some 28% items may go to 40%. Besides, the compensation cess that was to end by March 2026, may get subsumed in the 40% rate for many items and become permanent.

·         In the past few years passenger vehicles with higher engine capacity (SUVs and large cars) have witnessed the highest growth rate. The effective GST rates on these vehicles may not come down (or even go higher).

·         The prime minister has repeatedly mentioned the urgency to control obesity. Several consumption items (e.g., aerated beverages, confectionary, fried snacks, sweets etc.) are popularly believed to be contributing to the rise of obesity amongst common people, especially youth. These goods could potentially get classified as “sin" items and qualify for the highest tax rate.

·         To neutralize the fiscal impact of lower GST collection, the government may choose to cut subsidies on food and EV/solar. The pay commission award might also be rationalized to factor in the benefits of lower income tax, GST and inflation; resulting in lower rise in income than presently estimated.

·         Some of the lower GST benefits may be used to set-off losses on account of higher US tariff (for businesses which are not 100% export oriented) and not passed on to the consumers.

·         A major destocking exercise could happen before new GST rates come into effect. Buyers of discretionary items like cars and white goods may postpone buying till lower GST rates come into effect. 2QFY26 results may be impacted by lower sales and destocking. Though, Nov Dec may see accelerated demand and overall FY26 impact may be positive.

·         Petroleum products and alcohol continue to stay out of the GST ambit.

·         Not likely (but also not improbable), but the GST Council may not immediately approve the proposed changes in the GST rate structure, delaying the implementation. It will disappoint the traders and cause heightened volatility in the markets.

 The Niti Aayog published a working paper titled “India’s Path to Global Leadership: Strategic Imperatives for Viksit Bharat @2047”, in April 2025. The paper presents a roadmap for India’s economic growth, encompassing sustainability, social inclusion, national security, and global leadership.

Mr. Donald Trump has chosen to take some time before speaking with his Indian counterpart Mr. Narendra Modi. Trump has chosen to call the Chinese premier Xi Jinping, even before his inauguration. Prime Minister Modi has apparently sent a written congratulatory message to Trump, instead of calling him. This small pause in the top-level communication has triggered a debate about the shape of Indo-US relations in the near future.

In my view, before drawing any conclusion from Trump’s pause, and writing obituaries of the Indo-US strategic partnership, we must study the evolution of Indo-US relationships. This relationship has evolved over the past 75 years. It is primarily based on mutual need and shared democratic values, and goes much beyond the personal equation of individual leaders.

Prologue

The foundation of Indo-US was laid during the 1949 visit of Prime Minister Nehru’s visit to the US and meeting with President Henry Truman. Nehru was welcomed by everyone he met during his multi week stay in the US. However, Not much was achieved in diplomatic and economic terms.

Ten years later, President Eisenhower visited India for five days, in 1959. He addressed the Parliament and expressed “deep satisfaction at the friendly and cordial relations existing between their two countries, and their firm belief that their common ideals and objectives and their quest for peace will ensure the maintenance and development of the strong ties of friendship between the two countries.” Again, the Indo-US relations did not move beyond exchanging pleasantries.

The first chapter

India co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961, taking a neutral stand in the cold-war between the USSR and the US. 1962 was an important year in the evolution of Indo-US relationship. This year, the U.S. Agency for International Development signed the Kanpur Indo-American Program to help in the establishment of the first IIT. The program included deployment of American faculty members to develop academic programs and research laboratories at the new university over the next decade. Later, President Kennedy supported India in the Indo-China conflict, recognizing McMahon Line and also providing air assistance and arms. Next year, in 1963 Norman Borlaug, a renowned US Agronomist, visited India and laid the foundation of the Green Revolution. India also benefited from wheat imports from the US under PL-480 “food for peace” program during the 1960s.

1965 saw a material deterioration in the US-Indo relationship as Washington sided with Islamabad in the second major Indo-Pak conflict. The situation worsened further in 1970’s when President Nixon sided with Islamabad during the 1971 Indo-Pak war. This was the time when India signed a 20 year “Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation” with the USSR. The relationship deteriorated further in 1974 when India became the first non UNSC permanent member to conduct a nuclear test.

A reproachment effort started in 1978, after Mrs. Gandhi was defeated in the 1977 general elections. President Carter visited India and Prime Minister Desai reciprocated with a 6-day visit to Washington. However, with the US enacting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act in 1978, the process was derailed.

Prime Minister Gandhi made another attempt to revive Indo-US relations during her visit to Washington in 1982. She and President Regan largely agreed to increase cooperation and resolve a dispute over nuclear power. Vice president Bush (Sr.) led a high level visit to New Delhi to explore areas of cooperation. However, 1984 Bhopal Gas tragedy again derailed the process.

Post the end of the cold war (1989), for a few years, India and the US had a good working relationship. Prime Minister Rao unleashed substantial economic reforms and expanded economic ties with the US. However, things turned for the worse in the summer of 1998, when prime Minister Vajpayee surprised the US intelligence agencies with a nuclear test and announced India as a full-fledged nuclear power. President Clinton recalled his ambassador to India and imposed severe economic sanctions on India.

A year later in 1999, President Clinton called Pakistan Prime Minister Sharif and nudged him to end the Kargil conflict immediately. In the year 2000, Clinton became the first US President to Visit India since 1978. The visit marked the first step toward forming a durable Indo-US strategic relationship. Clinton agreed to not make signing of CTBT a precondition for Indo-US economic cooperation. The Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum was established during this trip, which also marked the beginning of the end of the Cold-War strategic US-Pak alliance. President Bush lifted all US sanctions on India in 2001.

Second chapter

In 2005 a new chapter in the Indo-US relations started. Both countries signed the New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship, which set priorities for defense cooperation in maritime security, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and counterterrorism. They also inked the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, a framework that lifts a three-decade U.S. moratorium on nuclear energy trade with India. Under the agreement, India agrees to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place all its civil resources under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. In exchange, the United States agrees to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India. (The US Congress and Indian Parliament ratified this deal in 2008.) In October 2005, both countries jointly conducted the largest naval exercise to date, followed by major air and land exercises.

In 2006, President Bush visited India and finalized, with Prime Minister Singh, Singh finalized the framework of the civil nuclear deal and boosted security and economic ties. The nuclear deal made India the only country outside of the Nonproliferation Treaty that has nuclear capabilities and is allowed to participate in nuclear commerce.

In 2007, an 18year old ban on import of Indian mangoes to the US was lifted, marking the beginning of an effort to double the Indo-US trade within three years. Bilateral trade in goods and services totaled around $45 billion in 2006 and rose to more than $70 billion in 2010.

In 2008, Chandrayaan-1 became the first Indian spacecraft to land on the moon. It carried two scientific instruments designed by NASA scientists, marking a significant progress in Indo-US space cooperation (an agreement that existed since 1963).

Third chapter

In 2010, India and the US convened the first U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue. Secretary Clinton lauds India as “an indispensable partner” and President Obama claimed the relationship “will be a defining partnership in the twenty-first century.” President Obama visited India in November. He addressed the Parliament and backed the country’s long-held bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. He announced $14.9 billion in trade deals.

In 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited India to bolster military ties. Next year (2013), Prime Minister Singh visited Washington to meet President Obama for the third time in four years to discuss important issues such as security, trade, immigration reform, and the civilian nuclear deal.

In 2014, President Obama invited Prime Minister Modi to the White House. President Obama made his second visit to India in 2015 as Chief Guest at Republic Day celebrations. Ten-year U.S.-India Defense Framework Agreement was renewed for another ten years.

In 2016, the US elevated India to a “major defense partner”, a status no other country holds. This enabled India to enjoy some of the benefits of being a U.S. treaty ally, such as access to defense technology.

In 2017, Prime Minister Modi visited the US to meet President Trump, who raised sharp disagreements with India over trade, climate change, and H-1B visas. Regardless, their joint statement emphasizes strengthening their defense partnership, cooperating on counterterrorism efforts, and boosting economic ties.

In 2018, during a “two-plus-two” dialogue in New Delhi an the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) was signed allowing India access to advanced communication technology used in U.S. defense equipment and allows real-time information sharing between the two countries’ militaries.

Fourth chapter

In 2018, the Indo-US relations took a turn towards the south. President Trump terminated India’s preferential trade status, part of a 50yr old program that allows products from developing countries to enter the U.S. market duty free. Trump claimed India has not provided “equitable and reasonable access” to its own market. In retaliation, India slapped tariffs on twenty-eight U.S. products.

In 2020, President Trump made his first official visit to India. India agreed to purchase US$3bn worth of military equipment. However, the two countries could not resolve pending trade issues. Opinions remained divided over agricultural products, tariffs, and other areas.

In 2020 the first in-person meeting of Quad was held, and President Biden hosted Prime Minister Modi for the first time.

In 2023, the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET), an agreement that aims to expand bilateral technology and defense cooperation is announced. As part of the deal, U.S. officials seek to reduce India's purchase of Russian arms.

Fifth Chapter

I guess, President Trump might look to begin a fresh chapter in the Indo-US relations. Early indicators are pointing that he may look to base the mutual relationship on equality. So far, the US has played the role of a dominant partner helping India to grow faster. President Trump may now seek to rebase the relationship seeking full reciprocity from India on key economic, trade and technology issues.

The Indo-US relationship henceforth may become purely transactional, shedding the pretense of strategic partnership. The Trump 2.0 administration would negotiate hard on tariff concessions; preference in defense and energy procurement; resolution of contentious issues like agriculture tariffs. The US negotiators might use the façade of freedom of speech & religion, persecution of minorities etc. as key negotiating tools.

It will obviously be a tough & volatile transition; especially when the domestic economy is passing through a challenging downcycle. During the previous transitory phases (1970s and Late 1990s), India managed well. Hope this time will not be different. Till then keeping fingers crossed, seat belt tightened, and store filled with emergency supplies.

The 2025^th year of the Christ is beginning on a very tentative note, particularly for investors in financial markets. The past four years have been relatively smooth for investors. With the benefit of hindsight, we can confidently claim that the markets were mostly driven by macro factors. Unprecedented liquidity infusion by the central banks and fiscal support to consumers across the world helped most asset classes to perform well.

Despite massive global disruptions due to the pandemic and geopolitical, the volatility in markets was largely contained. Since most asset classes yielded decent returns for investors, they were not really pushed hard to make choices.

However, the trend seen in the past few months is indicating that the conditions might change materially in the next 12-24 months. The macro trends may become ambivalent and unpredictable. Investors may need to make choices; and the return they would earn on their investment portfolios would largely depend on the choices they would make.

Choose your path carefully

Making right choices, in my view, would be the central investment challenge for the year 2025. The following situations, for example, would challenge investors to make a choice.

Promise vs. delivery

In the past few years, the Indian markets have been largely driven by the political and corporate promises, ignoring the actual delivery, especially in the matters of investments, infrastructure development, growth, and profitability. In the past few months corporate promises have started to moderate, albeit very gradually; but the government promises continue to remain rather exaggerated.

The themes like manufacturing for import substitution/export promotion, defense production, railways modernization and expansion, development of tourism ecosystem, clean energy, etc., which were mostly based on the government promise, have been popular with the investors in the recent years. The stocks associated with these themes have yielded extraordinary returns for investors.

Many businesses, especially those associated with these macro themes, also promised sustainable growth and profitability. So far, only a few have delivered on their promise. Very soon, investors would need to choose whether to continue relying on promises or shift the focus on businesses that have been delivering consistently.

Globally, the promises of the Trump 2.0 regime are becoming a major investment theme. The investors would also need to make an assessment of how much of Trump’s promises are deliverable and invest accordingly.

Short stories vs. epics

For ages, collections of short stories like Panchatantra, Jataka Tales, Aesop’s Fables, etc. have been key influencers of the value system, morality and consciousness of human beings. Very few of us would have bothered to read the full text of epics like Ramayana, Mahabharata. We know the broader plots and teachings of these epics through brief narrations by elders, TV shows and movies.

Similarly, most of the successful investors would have created their wealth by investing in some small ‘stories’. Investing in a broader macro trend (epics) requires a lot of patience, deep understanding of economics and deep pockets to weather through the macro cycles. For the impatient, small investors with low understanding of economic cycles, macro trends intermittently provide a lot of excitement. Extraordinary profits made riding popular waves, if not encashed in time and preserved, often perish in no time.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of investors are presently invested in “the epic India story”. It is important to note that this story has been unfolding since the early 1990s, and might take many more decades to fully unfold. In the past 34 years there have been many periods of rejection of this story as a valid investment theme. 2025-2026 could be another phase when a large section of investors, especially foreign investors, reject this story as bogus.

Small investors thus need to make a choice whether to stay invested in ‘the epic India story’ (macro themes like infra development, demographic dividend, rise in income & consumption etc.) or focus on finding some small stories that may yield results in the short period of time.

"MAGA" and "BRICS as a unified market with common currency" are some examples of global epics, which investors might need to accept or reject.

Jingoistic defiance vs. pragmatic escape

The year 2025 might bring many investors face to face with ground realities – social, political, and economic. Many of them may discover that their current portfolios of investment are not actually in sync with the current ground realities. Investors would need to make a choice whether to stay committed to their current asset allocation and investment portfolios; or make a strategic change and bring the portfolios in sync with the latest ground reality.

This may, for example, require rationalization of tactical debt allocations made to take advantage of sharp fall in bond yields; evaluation of gold allocation made in anticipation of easing bond yields & rising geopolitical tensions; and investment in traditional FMCG businesses which are facing margin & growth challenges.

Absolute vs relative return

With a material rise in the investments made through professional investment managers (MF, PMS, AIF etc.) in the past four years, investors have become used to assessing the performance of their investment portfolios relative to the benchmarks set by these professional investment managers. The relative return argument (or “strategy” if you prefer to use this jargon), functions well only if the benchmark continues to provide positive returns consistently. For those investors who are depending on their portfolio of financial investments to meet key goals of their life, e.g., financial freedom and retirement planning etc., a couple of years of negative return could spoil the entire math.

The investors whose investment objective involves any one or more of the following ought to prefer an absolute return strategy, instead of a relative return argument. For their investment objective would invariably involve a defined cash flow over a definite period of time. Their investment strategy must therefore focus on making a reasonable rate of absolute return over the “defined” period of time. Beating the benchmark index should be the least of their concerns.

·         Retirement planning – regular income to supplement the loss of salary/wages.

·         Goal based investment, e.g., buying a house, children education expense.

·         Financial freedom - assured minimum income to allow

2025-2026 could be one such period where non-institutional investors might have to make a choice between relative return and absolute return strategy.

The year 2024 is proving to be one of the worst years for political soothsayers. After a debacle in the Indian general elections last summer, psephologists have failed in the US presidential elections. The challenger Donald Trump emerged a winner, gaining popular votes to occupy the White House for four years with a clear majority in the US Congress and Senate. This kind of decisive mandate has been a rarity in US politics in the past four decades. Most of the media, political commentators, psephologists, and other experts completely failed to read the peoples’ mind and anticipated a victory for Kamala Harris.

The year 2024 started with the fervor of Ram Bhakti. The stock market made a new high in mid-January. Investors felt that the grand opening of Ram temple in Ayodhya will stimulate economic activity and provide a material impetus to economic growth. However, the stock market could not hold gains and ended the month of January almost unchanged.