India-EU Summit

The Departure of Enrica Lexie: Complete Justice or Diplomatic Success?

By rendering complete justice, the Indian Supreme Court seems to have reinstated India’s respect towards the international rule of law, specifically, its commitment under Article 51 of the constitution.

A long-fought legal and diplomatic melee between India and Italy over the jurisdiction of the Enrica Lexie incident came to a close recently.

On June 15, 2021, after almost a decade of national and international dispute process, the Supreme Court of India has decided to quash the pending criminal proceedings against two Italian marines, namely, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, who were charged with the murder of two Indian fishers in a shooting incident that occurred off the cost of Kerala in 2012.

The Supreme Court’s order came in the wake of the assurance made by Italy to conduct the criminal trial of their nationals before its domestic courts. More importantly, the decision grounded on Italy’s payment of compensation to the tune of Rs 100 million to be shared among the family of two victims and the owner of St Anthony, the fishing boat on which the alleged murder took place.

Although this order of the Supreme Court is of no surprise at this juncture, a comprehensive analysis of the whole case has reasons for a perfect nonplus. This piece aims to examine the atypical elements of the case to see how they are at odds with the Indian legal system and international adjudication.

When equity overrides law for the sake of justice

To terminate the criminal case against the marines, the court resorted to Article 142 of the constitution, which essentially supplies the Supreme Court with an extraordinary jurisdiction “to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.” The jurisprudence relating to this provision shows the court’s predisposition to ‘settlement’ rather than ‘resolution’ of disputes.

From Union Carbide to Ayodhya, the rich case law exemplifies a strong linkage between judicial settlement and Article 142. While this constitutional provision is primarily used in the context of human rights and environment protection, the court had been settling cases even in commercial matters, including in the area of insolvency and bankruptcy, lately. In all such cases, a final determination of the rights of the disputing parties remains extremely difficult.

Also read: Enrica Lexie Case: A Diplomatic Wrangle Nears Resolution

Similarly, India’s bone of contention in Enrica Lexie – retaining the jurisdiction over the marines – was legally impossible and politically intractable from the beginning. However, for reasons attributable to the apex court as well, an unnecessary delay in disposing of the matter led to a climax in which Article 142 turned out to be the safety valve. However, in pulling that safety valve, the court has apparently flouted a fundamental rule of the Indian criminal justice system against monetary compensation to bypass punishment.

Quashing an ordinary criminal case, even a murder case, may fall within the court’s equity jurisdiction. However, the thrusting of compensation in this case runs counter to the ethos of India’s criminal justice administration. Because it has an apparent resemblance with the practice of the payment of blood money or ‘Diya’, as it is called in Islamic legal systems, in which the heirs of the victim waive their right to demand the execution of the murderer in lieu of monetary compensation.

Italian sailor Salvatore Girone alights from the plane after landing at Ciampino airport in Rome, Italy, May 28, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Alessandro Bianchi

Italian sailor Salvatore Girone alights from the plane after landing at Ciampino airport in Rome, Italy, May 28, 2016. Photo: Reuters/Alessandro Bianchi

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) tribunal awarded this “compensation in connection with loss of life, physical harm, material damage to property and moral harm suffered by the captain and other crew members of the St. Antony, which by its nature cannot be made good through restitution”.

Such a remedy is plausible for an arbitral tribunal formed under the United National Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to make. Further, the international obligation to comply with this arbitral decision may give credence to the invocation of Article 142. However, compensation for a murder case, howsoever benevolent it appears, undermines the concept of rendering’ complete justice’ as provided in the constitution.

Bargaining in the shadow of law

Like the relevance of equity over law in delivering justice, the Enrica Lexie case has more to do with diplomatic means of dispute settlement than judicial means. It is a long-established practice in international law where governments, through the exercise of diplomatic protection, espouse international legal claims on behalf of their nationals against a foreign government.

Right from the beginning, Italy argued to take the dispute process to any of the three forums prescribed under the UNCLOS – the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea, and the UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal – as they rightly believed that the dispute pertains to the non-compliance of international law obligations as opposed to violations of domestic law.

However, the impressionistic view of the Supreme Court of India, perhaps based on the nationalistic fervour of the time, resulted in dragging the dispute on unnecessarily, at the cost of estranging the political relationship between both countries. Nevertheless, diplomacy had the last laugh. The denial on the part of the Indian government and the Supreme Court also meant a constant infraction of its constitutional scheme of ‘encouraging settlement of international disputes by arbitration’ as provided in Article 51.

Also read: Enrica Lexie: Did India Lose Case Against Italy Because of Lapses By its Own Supreme Court?

Nonetheless, the Italian republic sought provisional measures from the Hamburg-based ITLOS. As remarked by the former ICJ President Judge Stephen Schwebel much earlier, it was indeed a primary step for Italy to utilise “the legal conclusions arrived by an international court in framing further negotiations and in achieving settlement of the dispute.” The moment ITLOS directed to suspend the criminal proceedings in India and refer the matter to the Hague-based PCA tribunal, this outcome was almost obvious.

Though the PCA tribunal accepted most of India’s counterclaims, the resultant award was a clear sign of Italy’s diplomatic success. However, the settlement could be possible only with a negotiated bargain for hefty compensation. As stated in the arbitral award, “parties are invited to consult with each other with a view to reaching agreement on the amount of compensation.”

Though the tribunal had the option of determining the quantum of compensation, if the parties wished so, both governments seemed to have chosen the diplomatic way. In the pursuit of settlement, it is easy to reckon that Italians had to make an offer that the Indian government could not refuse. No doubt, the politicisation of the dispute and the concomitant popular opinion have made such a bargain inevitable in the instant case.

Interestingly, Italy asked the Supreme Court to release marines at the beginning of the dispute and India replicated the same to end the dispute.

Nevertheless, Enrica Lexie can be portrayed as a win-win for both sides. By rendering complete justice, the Indian Supreme Court seems to have reinstated India’s respect towards the international rule of law, specifically, its commitment under Article 51 of the constitution. Whereas the Italian government could bring the ball back to its courts by employing a new variant of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ in which they succeeded, not through the show of naval power, but by recompensing for the acts done on a ‘gunboat’. We now have to wait and see whether the Italian judiciary would be as diligent as their diplomatic mission when considering the case on its merits.

Harisankar K. Sathyapalan is an assistant professor, school of legal studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) and Research Fellow, Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR), Kochi. He can be reached at harisankar@cusat.ac.in. Views are personal.

EU Parliamentary Committee Expresses Concern Over Human Rights Situation in India

The development assumes significance in the wake of the upcoming India-European Union summit in Portugal in May.

New Delhi: Ahead of next month’s proposed India-European Union summit in Portugal, European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee has called for both sides to work closely but also expressed concern over the “deteriorating human rights situation in India”.

On April 13, the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament adopted a report which has a set of recommendations on strengthening the bilateral relationship. The report, adopted with 61 votes in favour and six votes against, will be made public after the European Parliament approves it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to travel to Portugal to attend the India-EU summit on May 8.

According to a press release, the report calls on the EU and India to work together to “promote a shared vision of a rules-based world order in multilateral settings, reinforcing international security, fostering connectivity, fighting climate change and enhancing global economic stability”.

Quoting the committee’s rapporteur, Finnish member of European Parliament(MEP) Alviina Alametsä, the press release stated that India and EU “as the world’s largest democracies have all the possibilities to build a better planet”.

“To fulfil our potential, we need to be more ambitious in our cooperation on preventing climate crises, promoting human rights, building connectivity, sustainable trade and defending a multilateral international order,” she said.

The press release noted that members of the foreign affairs committee “have expressed concern over the deteriorating human rights situation in India, echoing comments by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and several UN Special Rapporteurs”.

The concerns were about the “lack of safe working environment” for human rights defenders and journalists, as well as the “difficult situation” faced by women and minority groups. It also mentioned the closure of Amnesty International’s India offices over the alleged violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), which the report pointed was a law that three UN Special rapporteurs “have asked to be amended”.

The report also voiced “alarm regarding India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is fundamentally discriminatory in nature against Muslims and dangerously divisive”.

The report also stated that the EU is closely following the situation in Kashmir.

Besides, the MEPs called on the EU to renew efforts for rapprochement and restoration of good neighbourly relations between India and Pakistan “based on principles of international law”.

On China, there were expressions of concern on the worsening ties between the two Asian giants and China’s “expansive policy and substantial military build-up in the area”. “MEPs reiterate their support for peaceful dispute resolution, the need for constructive and comprehensive dialogue, and the upholding of international law on the India-China border,” said the press release.

With regard to economic relations, the report also advocated closer value-based trade ties and the need to work together on reforming the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

There was also a demand for modernisation of institutional architecture of the strategic partnership, including a more substantial parliamentary dimension.

Enrica Lexie Case: A Diplomatic Wrangle Nears Resolution

The episode shows how difficult it is to dismantle the pragmatic pillars of a relationship lacking a fundamental clash of interests.

History is replete with instances where realpolitik becomes a casualty of hubris. When we invoke pride and principle, we forget that pragmatism is the gold standard of diplomacy. The Enrica Lexie case is an example.

India’s attempt to exercise criminal jurisdiction over state officials was unlikely to succeed without Italy’s consent. Yet, both sides won points – Italy over jurisdiction and immunity and India over freedom of navigation and compensation.

Also Read: Enrica Lexie: Did India Lose Case Against Italy Because of Lapses By its Own Supreme Court?

How did the dispute impact the relationship?

As the media went into overdrive in both countries and foreign minister Giulio Terzi resigned, nationalist passion blindsided diplomacy. Italy and India have no common borders or conflict of interests. Yet the cycle of retaliation threatened to derail ties.

Relations hit turbulence when, in 2013, Italy refused to honour a promise for the marines to return after voting in an election. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called this “unacceptable,” warning of “consequences.” The Supreme Court barred Italian ambassador Daniele Mancini from leaving India. UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon stepped in, calling for a peaceful resolution of the dispute. Italy chose de-escalation by sending the marines back.

Basant Gupta, India’s ambassador to Italy at that time, tells me “high- level contacts were frozen,” and no meetings of the Joint Commission or of defence officials took place. His own departure for Rome had been deferred, and Italy twice recalled its ambassador. In 2015 Italy blocked India’s admission into the Missile Technology Control Regime. It took a 2016 visit to Rome by external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj to soothe feathers.

With the crisis going into high gear, the EU stepped in. In 2014 Federica Mogherini, the newly-appointed EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs became the activist. The EU Parliament criticised India for detaining the marines without charges and violating their human rights. The 13th India-EU summit, due in 2015, was postponed at the EU’s behest, and was held only in 2016.

Ahead of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the Italian Football Federation released two t-shirts with the marines’ names. Ferrari displayed ensigns of the Italian Navy on cars competing in the 2012 Indian Grand Prix, prompting the Ministry of External Affairs to protest this was not in “the spirit of sport.”

An Italian Navy flag is seen on the nose cone of Ferrari Formula One car during the second practice session of the Indian F1 Grand Prix, October 26, 2012. Photo: REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

Was there lasting damage to ties?

Nations grandstand, but interests put pause on hardline positions. “I had no problems. They were very nice to me at a personal level,” Gupta tells me. The Italians recognised the importance of the Indian envoy as an interlocutor. To avoid travelling to India, colleagues of the two marines had no other option than to appear at the Indian embassy in Rome to give testimony via video conference.

This episode shows how difficult it is to dismantle the pragmatic pillars of a relationship lacking a fundamental clash of interests. Once the dispute went into the multilateral legal domain, the Italian tone softened. The same Mogherini, speaking to the Economic Times after Kashmir’s internal reorganisation in August 2019, expressed understanding of “India’s security preoccupations.” In 2016, India gained admission into the Missile Technology Control Regime.

Why did the two sides pull back from hardline positions?

Italy is a major nation, due to hold the G-20 presidency in 2021. With GDP at $1.8 trillion in 2018, the nation was the world’s 8th largest economy, the 3rd largest economy in the Eurozone, the 6th largest manufacturing nation and the 8th largest exporter, says Stefania Benaglia, writing for Observer Research Foundation. Such compulsions explain why, even before the crisis had ebbed, Air India launched flights to Rome and Milan in 2014.

Even as the dispute peaked “business continued unhindered,” Gupta asserts, and “trade increased by a billion Euros between 2014 and 2015.” In 2017 trade stood at $8.7 billion, Benaglia says. Italy is India’s 10th largest market, and Italian investments in India between 2000-2018 were $3 billion. Italy regards India among its top five partners for international business. The Indian diaspora in Italy stood at 180,000 in 2018, the third-largest in Europe after Britain and the Netherlands.

Enrica Lexie. Photo: Wikipedia/CC BY 3.0

Thus, Italy ticks every box in India’s foreign policy preoccupations. If securing international support for the nation’s development is a strategic necessity, Italy is India’s partner of choice. Showing alacrity in fence-mending, India played host to prime ministers Paolo Gentiloni and Giuseppe Conte in 2017 and 2018. Visits by the head of a nation in successive years are unusual, but so were the circumstances.

Besides, if a ruling does, in the end, meet a nation’s objectives, conflict draws down. Even while arguing the right to try the marines, India had never claimed they were guilty. If Italy reneges on conducting the trial, India can refer back to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Even if the judgment had been passed by an Indian court, the marines still might have been allowed to face the sentence in Italy, some speculate.

Also Read: Is it the End of the Road for India in the Enrica Lexie Incident?

What are the lessons from this crisis?

When nations draw into nationalism, their actual achievements shift into the shadows. In such pantomime wars, politicians exploit foreign policy for profit. In India, the government could not ignore a charged Kerala, an important state. The Italians perhaps injected excessive emotion into the dispute. Act culturally, strategy suffers. As reluctant nationalism took charge in both nations, the trap had been laid.

Now both sides appear relieved. The Indian government has swiftly asked the Supreme Court to act on the verdict. Italy will be hard put not to meaningfully address compensation. How can it disregard a binding ruling, having gone to court in the first place? India will need to ensure that the trial in Italy is fair and the compensation just.

In this dispute, law was chasing politics. This reinforces what we know – a legal argument can win the case, but a political resolution is the prize. In 2016, when the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in the Philippines’ favour by rejecting China’s nine-dash-line territorial claim in the South China Sea, the latter rejected the verdict, calling it “null and void.” In contrast, in 2015 India accepted a ruling by the same court that awarded most of the disputed maritime territory to Bangladesh. The example of Italy resembles that of Bangladesh, where political calculation was primary.

Jitendra Nath Misra is a former ambassador and, until recently, advised the government of Odisha on sports, as well as being a visiting professor at Jamia Millia Islamia.

No Sign of EU-India FTA Talks Resuming, New High-Level Trade Dialogue Established

The issue of trade is of vital importance to the relationship as the EU is India’s largest trade partner, even after Brexit.

New Delhi: While the Indian and EU leadership affirmed the need for “balanced” trade and investment agreements and set up a new high-level trade dialogue, there are still no signs of resumption of talks on a free trade and investment protection agreement after the 15th India-EU summit.

The first virtual meeting on the platform of the annual India-EU summit took place on Wednesday, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking with president of the European Council Charles Michel and president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen through video conferencing.

The joint statement issued after the meeting said that both sides “reaffirmed their commitment to work towards a balanced, ambitious and mutually beneficial trade and investment agreements, opening markets and creating a level playing field on both sides”.

The issue of trade is of vital importance to the relationship as the EU is India’s largest trade partner, even after Brexit. The European Union is also the largest source for foreign investment to India, at over $91 billion.

EU president Charles Michel also flagged this area as one which needs to be upgraded. “The EU is India’s largest trade and investment partner. But India represents only about 2% of EU external trade. This is clearly an area that offers impressive potential for significant future growth. We agreed to enhance conditions for traders and investors,” he said at a press briefing in Brussels.

However, talks for a free trade agreement have been suspended and there is still no sign that they will begin anytime soon.

When asked if there was any timeline for the trade agreement, Ministry of External Affairs secretary (West) Vikas Swarup told reporters, “There is no time frame set for the conclusion of the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) but both sides have agreed that the two ministers mandated to take the discussions forward should meet as early as possible.”

He was referring to the establishment of a new mechanism of a high-level dialogue at the ministerial level with the mandate to “provide guidance to the bilateral trade and investment relations and to address multilateral issues of mutual interest”.

“The High Level Dialogue will aim at fostering progress on the trade and investment agreements, addressing trade irritants and improving conditions for traders and investors on both sides as well as discuss supply chain linkages,” said the joint statement.

During the media briefing in Brussels, Von der Leyen hoped that the new dialogue would “advance things and promote our common interest in moving forward towards a free trade agreement”. But, she added, “we are not there yet”.

In the run-up to the summit, EU official sources had expressed scepticism about restarting talks, citing India’s strong “protectionist” trends.

Also read: Protectionism Would Harm Indian Consumers, Businesses: Chinese Envoy on Rebuilding Ties

Five documents were concluded during the summit – a joint political statement, a Roadmap to 2025, pact on research and development in civil nuclear energy, joint declaration on resource efficiency and circular economy, and five-year renewal for science and technology cooperation agreement.

The EU has welcomed an Indian proposal for a “connectivity partnership that is open, sustainable and rules-based”.

India’s ongoing border tensions with China featured in the talks, with Modi briefing his EU counterparts.

Prefacing his remarks by saying EU and China’s relationship is “complex”, Michel said, “Prime Minister Modi had the occasion also to inform us about the latest developments regarding this incident with China and we support all the efforts in order to maintain a channel of dialogue in order to find peaceful solutions”.

India and China have been locked in a military stand-off in eastern Ladakh since early May. Following the deadliest clash at the Line of Actual Control in 45 years, both sides have been involved in military and diplomatic talks to de-escalate the situation.

To a question on whether India was more strategic to the EU than China, Von Der Leyen stated that both countries were important.

“If you look at the topics we have with China and with India – common interest is the fight against climate change. China and India are very important if you want to be successful in the fight against climate change,” she said.

She noted that the difference between the two countries was that India and the EU were democracies. “We can relate to being democracies and defending our values,” she said.

The joint statement also reiterated that the EU-India were the two largest democracies, with shared principles and values of democracy. It also said that the two sides “affirmed their determination to promote effective multilateralism and a rules-based multilateral order with the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at its core”.

An important aspect of the “Roadmap to 2025” was the reactivation of the India-EU human rights dialogue, which is described as a “key tool to promote shared values of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and convene regular meetings to forge mutual understanding and discuss human rights issues – including women’s rights and empowerment and child rights”.

During the press conference, Michel said in answer to a question that the EU had raised the topic of the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act with the Indian prime minister.

“In the EU parliament, it was an important topic in the last few months. We also had the occasion today to raise this topic with the prime minister. We trust the Indian institutions. We understand that the Supreme Court will have a role to play in order to assess this legislation,” he said.

Many Issues Stand in the Way of India, the EU Agreeing on a Free Trade Deal in Brussels

India needs to bring about comprehensive structural and legal reforms to negotiate a balanced free trade agreement.

Many issues need to be resolved before India and the EU can ink a free trade deal. Credit: PTI

International trade and foreign investment have come to occupy pivotal roles in international relations today. For India and the EU, this holds true too. Thus, what is likely to dominate the 13th India-EU Summit at Brussels is discussions on the pending India-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

India and the EU first started negotiations in 2007 on an FTA to cover trade in goods, services, intellectual property and foreign investment. However, 13 rounds of negotiations have not yielded a treaty to regulate trade and investment between the two sides.

Some analysts argue that it is in India’s interest to conclude an FTA with the EU in order to mitigate some of the export losses that it may suffer on account of trade diversion due to mega FTAs like the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade treaty between 12 countries who together account for more than 50% of global GDP.

Whether India will gain from an FTA with the EU depends entirely on the nature of the FTA signed between the two sides. Will the ongoing summit provide an opportunity to revitalise the moribund trade and investment talks?

The question is pertinent for India as well as the EU. A preferential access to the European market is critical in view of India’s exports falling continuously for past 15 months. India’s exports to the EU contracted by around 4.5% to $49.3 billion in 2014-15. For the EU, greater access to the Indian market is equally critical in view of the economic slowdown in Europe.

Tariffs, intellectual property issues

Any major breakthrough in the FTA talks is contingent upon India and the EU agreeing on many issues, which continue to put a spoke in discussions.

First, in terms of trade in goods, any FTA tries to bring down the tariff rates from the most favoured nation (MFN) rates. In fact, one of the major demands of the EU is that India should lower its tariff rates on European automobiles and wines and spirits. A lowering of tariffs may well result in greater trade with the EU, but for India this may mean more imports than exports. There will be a greater opening in the Indian market for European goods than in the European market for Indian goods. EU tariff rates are already quite low and thus, apart from sectors like textiles and fisheries, India’s exports to the region might not increase significantly if tariffs are cut.

In goods trade, the real issue for India is non-tariff barriers such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and technical barriers to trade. The EU has been imposing stringent labeling requirements and trademark norms, for instance, which have dented India’s exports. About two years ago, India’s export of Alphonso mangoes to the EU suffered due to stringent non-tariff barriers.

Second, in terms of trade in services, for India to benefit from an FTA with the EU, it needs strong binding promises by the EU on liberalising trade in services especially for the supply of services in what are known as modes 1 and 4.

Mode 1, as defined in the General Agreement on Trade in Services under the WTO, covers a range of outsourcing activities such as business, knowledge and legal process outsourcing. According to one estimate, Europe is a $45 billion potential outsourcing opportunity for Indian IT vendors. Thus, a legal commitment by the EU to outsource would immensely help India by creating many jobs. Mode 4 covers temporary movement of natural persons. Liberalisation under mode 4 would mean the EU allowing more Indian professionals preferential access to the European labour market, which could boost remittances from the EU to India. However, given the high unemployment rates in the EU due to economic slowdown, one is not sure to what extent the EU is willing to make commitments to liberalise trade in services.

Third, in the area of intellectual property (IP), the major disagreement is regarding IP protection standards. The EU is keen that India should adopt stringent IP protection standards even if that means going beyond the WTO specified standards that all countries, including India and the EU, have multilaterally agreed. India will not and should not agree to additional protection measures as this could compromise public health and raise other compelling concerns. This is a deeply disturbing trend seen in many FTA negotiations, where developed countries shift negotiations on IP standards from the WTO and World Intellectual Property Organisation to FTAs.

The problem of India’s model BIT

India’s new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is another major contentious issue, especially for foreign investment.

Stung by foreign investors suing India under different Indian BITs, India adopted a defensive model BIT in 2015, and would hope to use it as the basis to negotiate the investment chapter in the FTA.

The model BIT does not contain an MFN provision, excludes taxation measures, and makes it mandatory for foreign investors to exhaust domestic judicial and administrative remedies for at least a period of five years before pursing a claim under international law.

Given the experiences of major European companies such as Vodafone and Cairn, who are battling the imposition of retrospective taxes by India, the EU is deeply concerned about the protection of its investments in India. It is quite unlikely the EU will accept any proposal that might be detrimental to the interests of their foreign investors.

In fact, these provisions in the Indian model BIT also go against Indian companies who are investors in the EU.

Another major issue is that India already has a BIT with many European countries such as the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, and also with East European countries. What would be the fate of these investment treaties if the India-EU FTA were to become a reality?

Internal reforms needed

Notwithstanding these sticky issues, given the fact that negotiations at the WTO are stalled, India has no option but to play the FTA game with the EU and other countries to reap the benefits of international trade.

Whether India is able to protect its interests depends on its ability to negotiate balanced treaties. Equally, it depends on India being able to bring about comprehensive structural and legal reforms, such as making it easier to do business and imposing a single, comprehensive goods and services tax.

Till these reforms are carried out, it will be difficult for Indian goods and services to become globally competitive and harvest the benefits that a balanced FTA may offer.

Prabhash Ranjan is an assistant professor of law at South Asian University. (pranjan1278@gmail.com)