Celebrating failure? Why India–US trade deal raises hard questions, experts weigh in | India News

India-US trade deal: US tariffs on Indian goods were around 2-3 percent below standard Most Favored Nation (MFN) rates, but after President Donald Trump’s Independence Day tariffs (mid/late 2025), rates increased to 25 percent and then 50 percent on many Indian products. When US President Donald Trump announced that Washington would reduce reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 18 percent on Monday, the move was widely predicted to be a diplomatic and economic breakthrough. In his Truth Social post, Trump said that the US will impose reduced tariffs, while India will “move forward to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers to the US to ZERO.”

While the tariff reduction was widely welcomed, the unequal nature of the deal raised a fundamental question: Is India celebrating a strategic victory or accepting an unequal trade compromise? How fair is it for India to reduce its tariffs to zero while the US keeps its tariffs at 18 percent?

Also Check-Trade, oil and Ukraine: Signs of Modi-Trump deal | ANNOUNCED

This question is of great importance right now because trade deals are judged not just on immediate relief but on what they signal for future negotiations. At a time when global trade is increasingly shaped by tactics and geopolitical pressures, the terms India accepts today are of great importance.

Dr. Assistant Professor of International Relations at Manipal University, who discussed why the USA continues to impose 18 percent customs duty despite India’s zero access commitment. Sumit Kumar said reciprocity in trade is rarely arithmetic. In his view, the United States’ retention of the 18 percent tariff reflects domestic political economy constraints, legacy protection for sensitive sectors, and leverage protection rather than a rejection of reciprocity.

“India’s zeroing of tariffs and non-tariff barriers should be read not as immediate transactional symmetry but as a commitment to long-term strategic market access. In return, India secures predictability, supply chain continuity and insulation from future tariffs. In an era of increasing uncertainty, stable trade relations have themselves become an asset and India has negotiated for certainty rather than symbolic equality,” he added.

However, Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics, Manipal University, Dr. Siddharth Shukla warned that the tariff reduction was conditional and incomplete.

“The reduction of tariffs from 25 percent to 18 percent is a welcome step for the United States, but this step is not conveyed comprehensively because it depends on certain basic conditions. One of the most important of these is the complete halt of crude oil imports from Russia and its replacement with US-occupied Venezuela and the United States. This is being done to weaken Moscow’s finances, which will put pressure on Russia in the ongoing war with Ukraine.”

Dr. Shukla added that India’s investment in Chabahar port also played a dominant role in not reducing tariffs. He also added that the tariff reduction is also contingent on increasing the share of domestic American goods in U.S. exports.

From a political perspective, Akshaya Saroha, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Relations at IMS Unison University, sees the tariff cuts as a reflection of the US’s hegemonic trade stance.

“The US has lowered tariffs from the perspective of the trade hegemon. This stems from its gun-twisting approach to trade diplomacy, where it expects its trading partner to be obedient. India has been pressured to buy American oil, defense and agricultural products. This kind of tariff-threat diplomacy that has defined the Trump presidency shows how fair trade practices and international regimes are being implemented under the guise of trade.” it sank,” Dr. Saroha said.

As to whether accepting such terms constitutes a precedent, Dr. Sumit Kumar frames the deal as strategic risk management. Faced with threats of excessive tariffs, India prioritized economic shock absorption over rhetorical parity.

Dr. “The agreement protects Indian export sectors that are deeply entrenched in the US market while preventing escalation into a broader trade conflict. As our Secretary of State has noted, uncertainty is the new normal. This agreement preserves strategic autonomy, ensures market credibility and pragmatically positions India within an unstable global trade order,” Dr Kumar explained. Gambling.

However, Dr. Siddharth Shukla warns that zero market access could limit India’s future trade flexibility, increase dependence on the US and expose vulnerable sectors such as agriculture to competitive pressure.

“In light of the growing trade deficit with the US, the Buy America provision will flood Indian markets with domestic American goods, at which point the most vulnerable sector will be the Agricultural sector. Since the US has an ongoing trade war with China, Mexico and Canada, its agricultural exports are in a major downturn, and access to the Indian market at this point would become a lifeline for its agricultural exports. Accepting tariff cuts on such terms could mean a violation of US and rural markets that are in danger of being flooded with American goods in India’s future trade deals.” policy,” said Dr. Shukla.

Meanwhile, Akshaya Saroha explained that the structural imbalance in international institutions makes it easier for the US to keep international law at its disposal.

“Therefore, the absence of any enforcement mechanism that can keep unfair trade practices in check creates asymmetric trade across the world. However, India has been effective in its diplomacy when it comes to its national interests; the clear picture of this agreement or priority will be best explained once the nuances in the details emerge.”

The India-US trade deal reflects a pragmatic choice, balancing tariff reductions with strategic diplomacy and trade, under extraordinary global volatility.