India-US Trade Agreement Faces Criticism for One-Sided Terms and Strategic Risks
In a recent analysis, Pratap Bhanu Mehta highlights concerns over the India-US trade deal, describing it as a one-sided arrangement that creates significant vulnerabilities for India. The agreement, while presented as a strategic breakthrough, is argued to reflect imperial domination rather than reciprocal free trade, with implications extending beyond economics into national security and sovereignty.
Asymmetrical Trade Terms and Economic Implications
The Indo-US framework agreement is not a reciprocal free-trade pact. Under the new tariff regime, India is required to cut tariffs to zero, while the United States imposes rates as high as 18 percent, a structure reminiscent of 19th-century imperial trade. Additionally, India has committed to purchasing $500 billion worth of American goods over five years, a one-way obligation that distorts policy choices and risks reshaping industrial strategy by fiat rather than design.
Economic pragmatists defend the deal by noting it removes Russia-related punitive tariffs, grants renewed access to the US market, and may support India's China-plus-one strategy. However, its success hinges on domestic reforms, competitor behavior, and evolving Sino-US relations, making outcomes uncertain.
Strategic Abdications and Security Concerns
Trade is never just about trade; it intertwines with strategic decisions. India's position on the Ukraine war, initially seen as evasion, has shifted under duress, such as stopping purchases of Russian oil. This highlights how external pressures increasingly define India's relations with other states, undermining claims of autonomous foreign policy.
The United States does not view India as a strategic partner in critical security arenas, particularly in India's immediate neighborhood. On Pakistan, Washington has repeatedly subordinated Indian concerns to short-term American objectives. Even regarding China, the supposed cornerstone of Indo-US convergence, the US prioritizes managing China's power for its own benefit, treating India as an instrumental tool rather than an autonomous ally.
Broader Implications for Sovereignty and Power Dynamics
The agreement reflects a broader trend where the US demands regulatory conformity in domains like trade standards and data regimes, hollowing out sovereignty in practice. While liberal internationalist wars have receded, they have been replaced by arbitrary assertions of dominance through sanctions, tariffs, and coercion.
Formally, the framework allows renegotiation, but it embeds asymmetries that favor American leverage. Recent experiences show India often yields under pressure, raising questions about independent judgement. Acknowledging power asymmetry is realism, but internalizing it to relinquish autonomy is a different matter altogether.
In conclusion, while pragmatism might justify making the best of this deal, it cannot disguise the underlying diminishment of India's strategic position. The perfume of official announcements masks the stench of vulnerability, urging a reevaluation of balance and reciprocity in future engagements.
