A Controversial Pact
India’s recent trade agreement with the United States, finalised on February 2, 2026, has ignited a storm of domestic criticism, with opposition leaders describing it as a capitulation that undermines New Delhi’s strategic autonomy. The pact, shaped overwhelmingly by U.S. economic preferences, raises fundamental questions about India’s ability to chart an independent course in foreign policy and global trade. At a time when Indo-Pacific supply chains and geopolitical influence are being fiercely contested, India’s acquiescence exposes a worrying vulnerability in its negotiation posture.
Asymmetrical Reciprocity
The core criticism revolves around the concept of reciprocity. While India has agreed to eliminate nearly all trade barriers and reduce regulatory restrictions for American goods, the U.S. has offered only modest tariff relief, lowering its duties on Indian exports to 18%. Opposition figures argue that this lopsided arrangement demonstrates “asymmetry disguised as generosity,” forcing Indian exporters and manufacturers to operate under conditions that still leave them disadvantaged relative to regional competitors such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.
Beyond tariffs, India has committed to a $500 billion procurement pledge under the “Buy American” framework, spanning energy, technology, defense, and agriculture. Analysts note that India’s current annual imports from the U.S. barely approach $50 billion, making this figure aspirational rather than actionable. The absence of enforceable guarantees further exacerbates concerns that New Delhi traded substantial economic and policy space for an illusory short-term gain.
Energy Alignment or Subordination?
Perhaps the most contentious dimension of the agreement is India’s decision to terminate purchases of discounted Russian crude. Previously defended as an exercise in strategic autonomy and energy security, the move now aligns India’s energy policy with U.S. objectives in the Ukraine conflict. Moody’s Ratings warns that halting Russian imports could disrupt domestic energy markets, increase inflation, and strain industrial competitiveness. The decision signals a worrying shift from “multi-alignment” toward transactional dependency, compromising India’s historic flexibility in global affairs.
Domestic Economic Fallout
The agreement also carries profound implications for India’s domestic economy. Farmers’ collectives such as the Samyukta Kisan Morcha have condemned the pact as a blueprint for economic colonisation. U.S. agricultural products, heavily subsidised and exported at competitive prices, threaten to undercut Indian farmers’ incomes, while TRIPS-plus intellectual property clauses may constrain seed sovereignty and local innovation. Similarly, MSMEs face intense competition from zero-duty imports of machinery, technology, and industrial inputs, risking deindustrialisation even as the government pursues its “Make in India” agenda.
Strategic Autonomy at Stake
Strategically, the agreement represents a marked erosion of India’s negotiating credibility. By accommodating externally determined terms, New Delhi signals to regional and global actors that its policy choices can be shaped by external pressures. This raises broader questions about India’s role in the Indo-Pacific, its capacity to maintain independent foreign policy, and its ability to safeguard national interests amid intensifying U.S.-China competition. For a nation that aspires to regional leadership, the trade deal suggests acquiescence rather than influence.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale
India’s engagement with major powers is a legitimate element of its foreign policy. Yet, entering negotiations without leveraging domestic unity or securing robust safeguards risks sacrificing long-term strategic autonomy. The 2026 U.S.-India trade agreement illustrates the dangers of prioritising immediate alignment over sovereign decision-making. For India, the cost of these concessions extends beyond economics; it is a setback to credibility, independence, and the capacity to define its own trajectory in a multipolar world.
In an era where economic agreements double as instruments of statecraft, India’s choice serves as a cautionary tale: national interests are preserved not by acquiescence, but through balanced, reciprocal, and sovereignly anchored negotiations.
India’s Concessions to the United States and the Collapse of Strategic Autonomy
A Controversial Pact
India’s recent trade agreement with the United States, finalised on February 2, 2026, has ignited a storm of domestic criticism, with opposition leaders describing it as a capitulation that undermines New Delhi’s strategic autonomy. The pact, shaped overwhelmingly by U.S. economic preferences, raises fundamental questions about India’s ability to chart an independent course in foreign policy and global trade. At a time when Indo-Pacific supply chains and geopolitical influence are being fiercely contested, India’s acquiescence exposes a worrying vulnerability in its negotiation posture.
Asymmetrical Reciprocity
The core criticism revolves around the concept of reciprocity. While India has agreed to eliminate nearly all trade barriers and reduce regulatory restrictions for American goods, the U.S. has offered only modest tariff relief, lowering its duties on Indian exports to 18%. Opposition figures argue that this lopsided arrangement demonstrates “asymmetry disguised as generosity,” forcing Indian exporters and manufacturers to operate under conditions that still leave them disadvantaged relative to regional competitors such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.
Beyond tariffs, India has committed to a $500 billion procurement pledge under the “Buy American” framework, spanning energy, technology, defense, and agriculture. Analysts note that India’s current annual imports from the U.S. barely approach $50 billion, making this figure aspirational rather than actionable. The absence of enforceable guarantees further exacerbates concerns that New Delhi traded substantial economic and policy space for an illusory short-term gain.
Energy Alignment or Subordination?
Perhaps the most contentious dimension of the agreement is India’s decision to terminate purchases of discounted Russian crude. Previously defended as an exercise in strategic autonomy and energy security, the move now aligns India’s energy policy with U.S. objectives in the Ukraine conflict. Moody’s Ratings warns that halting Russian imports could disrupt domestic energy markets, increase inflation, and strain industrial competitiveness. The decision signals a worrying shift from “multi-alignment” toward transactional dependency, compromising India’s historic flexibility in global affairs.
Domestic Economic Fallout
The agreement also carries profound implications for India’s domestic economy. Farmers’ collectives such as the Samyukta Kisan Morcha have condemned the pact as a blueprint for economic colonisation. U.S. agricultural products, heavily subsidised and exported at competitive prices, threaten to undercut Indian farmers’ incomes, while TRIPS-plus intellectual property clauses may constrain seed sovereignty and local innovation. Similarly, MSMEs face intense competition from zero-duty imports of machinery, technology, and industrial inputs, risking deindustrialisation even as the government pursues its “Make in India” agenda.
Strategic Autonomy at Stake
Strategically, the agreement represents a marked erosion of India’s negotiating credibility. By accommodating externally determined terms, New Delhi signals to regional and global actors that its policy choices can be shaped by external pressures. This raises broader questions about India’s role in the Indo-Pacific, its capacity to maintain independent foreign policy, and its ability to safeguard national interests amid intensifying U.S.-China competition. For a nation that aspires to regional leadership, the trade deal suggests acquiescence rather than influence.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale
India’s engagement with major powers is a legitimate element of its foreign policy. Yet, entering negotiations without leveraging domestic unity or securing robust safeguards risks sacrificing long-term strategic autonomy. The 2026 U.S.-India trade agreement illustrates the dangers of prioritising immediate alignment over sovereign decision-making. For India, the cost of these concessions extends beyond economics; it is a setback to credibility, independence, and the capacity to define its own trajectory in a multipolar world.
In an era where economic agreements double as instruments of statecraft, India’s choice serves as a cautionary tale: national interests are preserved not by acquiescence, but through balanced, reciprocal, and sovereignly anchored negotiations.
Latest Post