Trade deals need to be set in strategy, not expediency

India should eliminate exploitative labour practices because they weaken our economy, diminish our reputation and betray our own values, not because another country expects it.

A recent editorial in this newspaper argued that a deal with the United States now will go a long way in reducing the uncertainty that has marred relations between the countries, while expanding trade (‘Ahead of the big deal, strike a careful balance’, IE, July 17). But the proposed India-United States trade agreement is about far more than trade. It is about how a rising India engages the world’s largest economy while preserving the strategic confidence, policy flexibility and institutional freedom that will define its next phase of growth.

Even after agreements with the UK, Australia and Europe, no market matches the scale, investment capacity, technological depth and strategic importance of the US. Equally, America has strong reasons to deepen its economic engagement with India. It seeks access to one of the world’s fastest-growing consumer markets, a trusted strategic partner in an uncertain Indo-Pacific and an economy that will shape demand for digital and financial services. Neither country can fully realise its ambitions without a deeper partnership with the other.

Washington may also have underestimated India by assuming that the goodwill and political symbolism of the Howdy Modi moment would translate into greater negotiating flexibility and acceptance of US preferences in a bilateral agreement. It did not. Tariffs, public pressure and shifting geopolitical signals may have tested the relationship, but they did not fundamentally alter India’s negotiating posture, reminding both capitals that political chemistry has its limits, whereas sound public policy demands pragmatism, reciprocity and an unwavering commitment to long-term interests.

That is precisely why these negotiations deserve greater public reflection. The pursuit of immediate economic gain, or the political satisfaction of announcing a successful agreement, could gradually narrow the policy choices available to future governments. Every bilateral negotiation requires accommodation. None should diminish a nation’s long-term strategic confidence.

Diplomatic engagement has become more transactional and, on occasion, uncomfortably patronising. Tariffs, sanctions, export controls, technology restrictions and financial access have become instruments of geopolitical influence. India has navigated these changes with composure. That composure should continue, but New Delhi must remain anchored in strategic judgement rather than tactical expediency.

The commitments India accepts today may well become the standards the US expects from it and others tomorrow. Trade agreements increasingly establish geopolitical precedents, not merely commercial obligations. That is why every clause deserves to be negotiated with an eye on the next decade rather than the next news cycle. The concerns over forced labour should also prompt introspection, not indignation. India should eliminate exploitative labour practices because they weaken our economy, diminish our reputation and betray our own values, not because another country expects it.

Equal care is required in areas extending beyond merchandise trade. Labour mobility, digital trade, data governance, and emerging technologies will shape India’s development long after tariff schedules are forgotten. The defining lesson of contemporary geopolitics is unmistakable: Technology that a nation does not own can, one day, be used to influence, constrain or coerce it. Trade agreements must preserve India’s sovereign ability to govern its data, regulate its digital economy and shape its technological future. The same discipline should guide India’s approach to food and energy security.

Agreements of this consequence acquire greater durability and public confidence when subjected to scrutiny before becoming binding national commitments. Such scrutiny strengthens international agreements by giving them wider political ownership and democratic legitimacy. The understandable desire to conclude an agreement within a political timetable should never outweigh the responsibility of preserving India’s long-term strategic choices. We should negotiate for the economy we aspire to become, not merely the economy we happen to be.

Sridharan is a corporate advisor and author of Family and Dhanda