NEW DELHI: India's Supreme Court on Friday extended by three months the term of a panel arbitrating a decades-long dispute over plans to build a Hindu temple on the ruins of a 16th-century mosque in the northern town of Ayodhya.
The extension makes the contentious issue less likely to fuel religious tension during a seven-phase general election that started on April 11, with votes set to be counted on May 23.
The panel has been given until Aug. 15, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, raising hopes for an amicable settlement of India's biggest religious dispute, with a history of unleashing riots in many parts of the country.
"There was a plea from the mediators' panel to extend the term until Aug 15 and we have agreed," Gogoi said after receiving a preliminary report from the panel.
The extension came after the panel, set up in March with an initial deadline of eight weeks and headed by former judge F. M. Kalifulla, handed over the report, which was not made public.
Months before the election, Hindu allies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had ratcheted up their demand for a temple to be built at the site many Hindus consider to be the birthplace of a revered deity, Lord Ram.
But just ahead of the election, conservative Hindu groups put the temple plan on the backburner.
A violent Hindu mob destroyed the mosque in Ayodhya in 1992, triggering riots that killed about 2,000 people in one of the worst episodes of sectarian violence since India's partition from Pakistan at independence from colonial rule in 1947.
Since the mosque demolition, the Supreme Court has kept control of the site in India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh, which sends the largest number of MPs to parliament.
The Supreme Court, which had been weighing petitions from both Hindu and Muslim communities over what should be built in Ayodhya, set up the arbitration panel on March 8.
Hindu groups say there was a temple at the site in Ayodhya before the mosque was erected by a Muslim ruler in 1528.
The dispute has fuelled tension and ill-feeling between majority Hindus and the Muslim minority, which makes up about 14 percent of India's population of 1.3 billion.
India's top court extends term of arbitrators in Ayodhya temple dispute
India's top court extends term of arbitrators in Ayodhya temple dispute
- The extension makes the contentious issue less likely to fuel religious tension during a seven-phase general election that started on April 11
- It came after the panel, set up in March with an initial deadline of eight weeks and headed by former judge F. M. Kalifulla, handed over the report
Trump cuts India tariffs as Modi ‘agrees’ to stop buying Russian oil
- US will impose an 18 percent tariff on Indian goods, down from the earlier 50 percent punitive levy
- Withdrawal from Russian oil may affect India’s relations with BRICS, expert says
NEW DELHI: The US and India have announced reaching a trade agreement after months of friction, with President Donald Trump saying that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had “agreed” to halt purchases of Russian oil.
In August, Trump accused India, which imports most of its crude oil, of funding Moscow’s war in Ukraine and subjected it to a combined tariff rate of about 50 percent on most of the exports.
Following a call with Modi on Monday, Trump took to social media to say that he would cut with immediate effect US levies on Indian goods to 18 percent after Modi “agreed to stop buying Russian Oil, and to buy much more from the United States and, potentially, Venezuela.”
At the same time, India, Trump wrote, would “reduce their Tariffs and Non Tariff Barriers against the United States, to ZERO,” committing to buy “over $500 BILLION DOLLARS of US Energy, Technology, Agricultural, Coal, and many other products.”
Modi confirmed the agreement on social media, saying: “Made in India products will now have a reduced tariff of 18 percent,” without commenting on Russian oil or duty-free imports of American goods.
When the US announced its punitive tariffs last year, India quickly moved forward with free trade negotiations with other countries — signing a deal with Oman and finalizing negotiations with New Zealand and the EU.
While the agreements were expected to partially offset the loss of exports to the US, economists did not expect they would immediately mitigate it, as shifting supply chains takes time.
The newly announced agreement with the US will therefore offer short-term relief for Indian exporters — especially of textiles, gems, jewelry and marine products — who were facing the threat of a market exit.
“In that case, the trade deal with the US is a welcome step. It provides short-term relief, allowing India to continue exporting to the US without being forced to exit the US market and diversify with a huge transition cost,” said Anisree Suresh, geoeconomics researcher at the Takshashila Institution.
“However, one shouldn’t look at it as a comprehensive long-term trade deal like the one India signed with the EU. The unpredictability of the Trump administration remains a major concern, regardless of whether there is a trade deal with the US ... India cannot treat this deal the same as other FTAs, as it is limited in scope and subject to reversal.”
When the US imposed its punitive tariffs on India, about 66 percent of total Indian exports were subject to that rate. Overall, India recorded a negative margin of 19.5 percent, meaning its exports were taxed more heavily than those of its competitors.
“From that point of view, Indian goods will have a larger market over there. However, there’s a problem when we talk about a 0 percent tariff on the US,” said Prof. Arun Kumar, a development economist.
“The US will be able to export a lot more to India, and therefore it will affect our production within the economy. And that will be a setback, so while exports may rise, the internal economy may actually suffer because of this decrease in tariffs on American goods. And especially if it affects agriculture.”
The sudden withdrawal from India’s partnership with Russia may not have a serious economic impact but politically could affect New Delhi’s relations, also with other countries, especially those from BRICS — a grouping that besides India and Russia includes also Brazil and China, and is the most powerful geopolitical forum outside of the Western world.
“You can always substitute Russian oil with some other oil, but I think it’s more of a strategic question, because India and Russia have had long-standing relationships, and if we bend to US pressure and reduce purchases from Russia, then it will affect in future also our relationship with Russia, because we will not be seen as a stable ally,” Kumar said.
“BRICS nations will not trust India very much in the future ... and that’s what Trump wants. He wants to disrupt BRICS. That’s what he has been doing right since the beginning to divide nations and deal with them individually.”
