A close reading of the interim trade framework agreed between the United States and India reveals an agreement marked more by imbalance than reciprocity, according to distinguished geostrategist Brahma Chellaney.
In a post on X, Chellaney criticized the recent U.S.-India trade deal, arguing that India’s commitments under the arrangement are clearly defined, time-bound and subject to formal monitoring. New Delhi has agreed to open segments of its industrial and agricultural markets to American exports, with obligations that take effect immediately and can be assessed against specific benchmarks.
But the concessions offered by Washington are largely conditional or reversible. Several measures highlighted by the U.S. side involve a partial rollback of penalties that the United States itself imposed unilaterally in 2025, rather than fresh market access or long-term guarantees.
These steps can be withdrawn at the discretion of U.S. authorities, leaving India exposed to future shifts in American trade policy.
The language used by the White House and the Office of the United States Trade Representative further underscores this imbalance. India is repeatedly described as a market to be opened, rather than a strategic partner. Official statements emphasise gains for American workers, exporters and surplus capacity by tapping into India’s large consumer base, with limited reference to mutual benefits or shared industrial goals.
READ: US India trade deal: Key takeaways from joint statement (
The structure of the agreement reflects this hierarchy. India’s market opening enables it to recover access to the U.S. market that was curtailed by punitive tariffs introduced last year. At the same time, the United States secures expanded entry into Indian sectors while retaining an 18 percent tariff wall at home and broad discretionary powers over enforcement.
Chellaney has warned of what he describes as a widening imbalance in commitments under the evolving U.S.-India trade and energy framework. He argues that while India is locking itself into hard, closely monitored obligations across tariffs, purchases and energy sourcing, the United States is offering measures that remain conditional, reversible and discretionary. His assessment raises broader questions about whether the current trajectory preserves India’s negotiating leverage or leaves New Delhi bearing a disproportionate share of the risk as talks progress.
As Chellaney points out:
- The emerging framework reflects a clear asymmetry, with India making firm, measurable concessions while the United States retains flexibility to revise or withdraw its commitments.
- India’s tariff liberalization spans industry, agriculture and energy, effectively restoring U.S. market access restricted by earlier punitive duties.
- U.S. tariff relief remains limited and conditional, with rates still above standard MFN levels and subject to reversal at presidential discretion.
- India’s purchase commitments are among the most binding elements, including a reported pledge of about $500 billion over five years for U.S. energy, aircraft, coal and technology.
- The United States has made no corresponding commitment to import a fixed value of Indian goods or services, leaving market access largely one-sided.
READ: India to have advantage over China, Thailand, Bangladesh, per new trade pact with US (
- On energy, India appears to accept implicit constraints on sourcing Russian crude, tying its energy security more closely to U.S. and allied suppliers to avoid future penalties.
- Washington retains enforcement leverage, reserving the right to judge compliance and reimpose tariffs if India resumes Russian oil purchases.
- Monitoring mechanisms further tilt the balance, with India subject to formal verification under U.S. executive orders, particularly on energy imports.
- American concessions remain executive actions rather than treaty-bound obligations and can be withdrawn unilaterally without congressional approval.
- India has committed to dismantling non-tariff barriers on U.S. medical devices and ICT products within a defined timeframe.
- Meanwhile, longstanding U.S. sanitary and phytosanitary standards continue to restrict Indian agricultural and pharmaceutical exports.
- In agriculture, India opens sensitive segments while shielding core staples, a move that still carries political risk due to potential price pressure on small farmers.
- U.S. agribusinesses gain wider access to India’s market without facing comparable exposure in return.
India’s current concessions are likely to become the baseline for a future bilateral trade agreement, narrowing its negotiating space. - U.S. language on future talks remains non-binding, signaling intent rather than obligation on further tariff reductions.