Interpreting the India-US Trade Agreement

Business Standard, 16 February 2026

The trade agreement between India and the United States has generated domestic political criticism. It is said that there is a "wholesale surrender" of national interest. Farmers have organised protests. Security experts warn that India is relinquishing strategic autonomy by stopping Russian oil purchases.

The mercantilist view -- that exports are the prize and imports are the price we pay -- is economically flawed. At a fundamental level the prize in international trade is:

The value of each trade agreement is measured by the reduction in Indian trade barriers.

High tariffs on intermediate goods and machinery increase the cost of production for Indian firms. By protecting inefficient domestic sectors, we implicitly tax the efficient ones. The narrative that liberalization is a "surrender" assumes that the status quo was optimal. It was not. The status quo was a high-cost, low-competitiveness equilibrium that hindered India’s integration into global supply chains and thus Indian economic growth.

The commitment to eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods is a productivity shock. When Indian manufacturers can import high-tech machinery, intermediate inputs, and components from the US without the friction of prohibitive duties, their landed costs decrease.

Economists have a sweet phrase "the Lerner Symmetry Theorem" -- a tax on imports is effectively a tax on exports. By lowering import barriers, we are improving the competitiveness of Indian exporters. We trigger off a shift in the allocation of Indian labour and capital, away from uncompetitive sectors, into the ones that India is really good at, which generates GDP growth.

Simplistic ideas about farmers and food are also flawed. Tariffs on food are regressive taxes; they disproportionately impact the poor who are net buyers of food. Political thinkers need to re-evaluate the size of the land-owning farming families group vs. the number of poor people buying food. Food tariffs benefit large land holdings exactly as input subsidies and MSP do. The entire logic of positive externalities from improved nutrition for the poor translates into benefits from reducing trade barriers for food.

A problem that will now come up is the inconsistency between the superior economics knowledge, in three recent Indian trade agreements (US, EU, UK) vs. the old Indian socialism that's in force at the multilateral level. India has long been a wrecker at the WTO.

Consider the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) agreement at the WTO. This initiative aims to streamline investment procedures and improve transparency. Yet, India has blocked its adoption. At the same time, the joint statement with the US highlights India’s intent to attract capital and technology, including a signaled intent to purchase $500 billion in US goods, comprising energy, aircraft, and technology products. It is incoherent to actively solicit investment bilaterally while structurally opposing investment facilitation multilaterally.

A similar hypocrisy exists in the digital domain. The bilateral agreement emphasizes cooperation on sensitive technologies, GPUs, and AI infrastructure. Yet, at the WTO, India continues to oppose making the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions permanent. We seek to import the hardware of the digital economy -- data center equipment and chips -- while fighting for the right to tax the software and data flows that make that hardware useful.

Perhaps the trade economists from all these teams need a nice off-site to sort out their differences.

The current agreement is an "interim" step, with a lot of "intent" but not legal obligations. In the Trump world this is dangerous. Further, we have to think more about who controls what. The commitment to purchase $500 billion in US goods over five years is a throwback to central planning. Governments do not buy goods; firms do. We hope officials don't make purchase targets.

The approach on Non-Tariff Barriers needs to evolve. The current commitment is merely for a "six-month review" of standards and testing requirements in sectors like medical devices and ICT. A review is not a reform. A high-quality Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) requires binding clauses with specific timelines for regulatory harmonization. The friction in trading medical devices or high-end electronics is often not the tariff, but the arbitrary testing and certification standards that act as de facto protectionism, as non rule of law.

Similarly, the digital economy requires more than just vague cooperation. India has committed to "negotiate" rules on digital trade but has not yet agreed to binding provisions on cross-border data flows or the prohibition of mandatory source code disclosure. In modern Free Trade Agreements, such as the USMCA, these are standard pillars. Without them, the "tech partnership" remains vulnerable to domestic regulatory whims and capricious Trump retaliation.

There are hoops to jump on Rules of Origin. As supply chains decouple from China, the US will demand intrusive verification to prevent leakage. This will require Indian firms to accept a higher degree of transparency and compliance burden than they are accustomed to. Implementing this requires state capability. The verification process should not become a next layer of inspector raj, with delays, compliance costs and corruption.

The EU FTA, the UK FTA and the US trade agreement are adding up to a good wave of Indian liberalisation. The UK and EU agreements, conducted in an amicable political environment, need to go up to becoming genuine Deep Trade Agreements.

We should pay heed to the USTR document on Indian trade barriers for two reasons:

  1. For us in India, it's modern trade economics knowledge that dissects and documents Indian protectionism.
  2. It's the ever simmering problem that can induce a next Trump explosion.

We in India should treat this document as a goal post to shoot for, in modernising Indian economic policy. What are all the changes required in this document, so that it shows an India that has sophisticated trade policy? By doing this, we gain twice. First, we will reduce trade friction with the US. Second, we will lay the foundations for high Indian GDP growth.

Back up to the media page for the year
Back up to Ajay Shah's home page