India-US trade deal didn’t happen because Modi did not call Trump: Lutnick
New York (PTI): US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said the trade deal with India did not happen because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not call US President Donald Trump.
In an interview with the ‘All-in Podcast’ on Thursday, Lutnick detailed how the India-US trade deal has not happened till now.
“I'll tell you a story about India. I did the first deal with the UK, and we told the UK that they had to get it done by two Fridays from now. That the train was going to leave the station by two Fridays, because I have a lot of other countries doing things, and you know, if someone else is first, they're first. President Trump does deals like a staircase,” Lutnick said.
“(The) first stair gets the best deal. You can't get the best deal after the first guy,” he said.
Lutnick said Trump does things that way “because that way it incents you to come to the table”.
He recalled that after the UK deal, everyone asked Trump which country will be next and while the president talked about a variety of countries, “but he names India a couple of times publicly".
“And we were talking (with) India, and we told India, ‘you have three Fridays’. Well, they have to get it done,” he said.
Lutnick said that while he would negotiate the contracts with the countries and set the whole deal up, "But let's be clear, it's his (Trump) deal. He is the closer. He does the deal. So I said ‘You got to have Modi, it's all set up, you have to have Modi call the President. They (India) were uncomfortable doing it, so Modi didn't call.”
Lutnick said after that Friday, the US announced trade deals with Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
He added that Washington was negotiating with other countries and “assumed India was going to be done before them”.
“I have negotiated them at a higher rate. So now the problem is the deals came out at a higher rate. And then India calls back and says, ‘Oh, okay, we are ready’. I said, 'ready for what, it was like three weeks later’,” he said.
“I go, ‘Are you ready for the train that left the station three weeks ago?’ So what happened is they just…there's sometimes there's that seesaw, and people are just on the wrong side of the seesaw,” the trade secretary said.
"So what happened is India just was on the wrong side of the seesaw, and it was just they couldn't get it done,” Lutnick said, imitating a seesaw with his hands.
“And so what happened is all these other countries kept doing deals, and they're (India) just further in the back of the line,” he said.
Lutnick said he wanted the trade deal with India to happen “in between the UK and Vietnam because that's what I negotiate”.
“And they remember, and I remember, and they say, ‘but you agreed’. And I said, ‘then, not now, then’. So that's the problem. India will work it out, but there's a lot of countries and they each have their own deep internal politics, and to get something approved by their parliament… these are deeply complex things,” he added.
Lutnick’s remarks came a few days after Trump said that Modi knew he was unhappy with India's purchases of Russian oil and that Washington could raise tariffs on New Delhi "very quickly".
The threat by the US president came at a time when the two countries were negotiating a bilateral trade agreement.
So far, six rounds of negotiations have been held for that. The pact includes a framework deal to resolve the 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods entering the US.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ballari violence: Were cops made scapegoats to cover political failure?
Bengaluru: Across Karnataka, a serious discussion has begun after the violence in Ballari and the swift action taken against police officers who were on the ground that day. The core question being asked is simple: when law and order fails, why are police officers the first to be shown the door, while political responsibility is quietly pushed aside?
The January 1 clash in Ballari was not a sudden street fight. It was a political confrontation involving supporters of two sitting MLAs. A banner related to the unveiling of a Valmiki statue became the flashpoint. What followed was stone-pelting, firing, and the death of a Congress worker. The situation spiralled within hours.
Within a day, Ballari SP Pavan Nejjur was suspended. Soon after, senior officers were reshuffled. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vartika Katiyar was transferred. No official reason was cited in the notification. But the timing made one thing clear: accountability, at least on paper, had been fixed.
Since then, there has been unease within police circles and political debate outside it.
Unconfirmed reports that Nejjur attempted suicide after his suspension were firmly denied by senior officers and the home minister. They said he was safe, resting, and under stress. Still, the very fact that such reports gained traction says something about the pressure officers feel when action is taken overnight, without public clarity.
Opposition leaders have called Nejjur a scapegoat, pointing out that he had taken charge only hours before the violence. They have asked how an officer can be blamed for a political clash he barely had time to assess. They have also drawn parallels with earlier incidents where police leadership was suspended after tragedies, while political decision-making remained untouched.
However, responding to this criticism, Home Minister G Parameshwara rejected the argument that the suspension was unfair because Nejjur had assumed charge only hours earlier. “It is not important whether he reported to duty on the same day (of incident) or one hour back. Duty is duty. He is not new to the department. IPS officers are trained to handle such situations any time. If he had acted swiftly and promptly, he could have prevented the situation from escalating.” He had said adding that Nejjur did not discharge his duties properly and that this was the reason for his suspension.
Now, fresh and unconfirmed reports suggest that Vartika Katiyar may have met a senior cabinet minister, questioning why she was made to pay the price for a situation that was political in nature. There is no official confirmation of this meeting. But the talk itself has added fuel to the debate.
What is being discussed in the state is not whether the police made mistakes. Many acknowledge that the situation on January 1 was mishandled. A clash earlier in the day was allowed to cool down without strong preventive action. Later, a banner came up near a politically sensitive location. The crowd should not have been allowed to build up. Better anticipation was needed.
At the same time, critics are asking whether the entire burden can be placed on officers when the trigger itself was political rivalry. Who installed the banner? Who mobilised supporters? Who had armed private gunmen present at the spot? These are questions that are still part of the investigation, yet administrative punishment moved faster than political accountability.
This has led to a wider comparison with past incidents, including the Bengaluru stampede after the RCB victory celebrations. There too, police officers were suspended after lives were lost, while decisions taken at higher levels were defended as unavoidable. Many are now saying Ballari fits into the same pattern.
The argument being made is not that the police are blameless. The argument is that responsibility appears to stop at the uniform. When things go wrong, officers are transferred or suspended to send a message. But when the violence is rooted in political rivalry, that message feels incomplete.
Within police ranks, there is also quiet concern about working conditions. Officers say they are expected to manage volatile political situations overnight, often with little room to push back against powerful interests. When things hold, they are invisible. When they collapse, they stand alone.
The Ballari episode has once again exposed this fault line.
For the government, the challenge is larger than one suspension or transfer. The real test is whether it is willing to publicly acknowledge political failures when law and order breaks down, instead of letting the system suggest that the police alone dropped the ball.
For now, what remains is a growing feeling across Karnataka that accountability is selective. And that whenever politics turns violent, the easiest answer is to change the officers, not the decisions that led to the violence in the first place.
