Share News that unites, stories that inspire!

Tweet

India US Trade Deal at 18% Tariff: Modi’s Calm Strategy Turns Pressure into Leverage

In trade diplomacy, outcomes are rarely “wins” or “losses” in the way social media likes to score them. They are bargains: a complex exchange of market access, geopolitical alignment, domestic red lines, and timing. That’s why the reported conclusion of the India–US trade understanding—anchored around a new 18% tariff rate on many Indian goods (down from 50%)—is being read in New Delhi not just as a tariff story, but as a signal: India can absorb pressure, hold the line where it matters, and still extract a workable landing.

What the India US Trade Deal appears to do—and why 18% matters

Based on reporting and early briefings, the arrangement has three big pillars:

1. Tariffs reset: The US cuts tariffs on Indian goods to 18% from 50% (and reportedly lifts a punitive add-on linked to Russian oil).
2. India’s purchase commitments: India increases purchases of US items—especially petroleum/energy, defence equipment, aircraft, and other industrial goods—often framed as a multi-year buying plan.
3. Selective market access and barriers: India offers limited market openings and reduces certain trade barriers, while keeping protections in especially sensitive farm sectors (rice, dairy, sugar, and soy are cited as examples of protected areas).

To critics, 18% can sound like a “still-high” baseline—because it is not zero. To negotiators, it can also be interpreted as a controlled de-escalation that restores competitiveness for exporters, stops a spiral, and buys time for a broader pact. To a large extent, markets reacted positively (stocks and rupee strengthening) after the announcement.

And importantly, multiple reports suggest the text is still being finalised into a formal joint document—meaning the politics are loud because the fine print still matters.

The deeper story: India’s bargaining style—calm, slow, and hard to move

India US Trade Deal talks often break down not over tariffs but over domestic constraints. In India’s case, agriculture is the political third rail. The reported structure—measured openings, strong carve-outs—reads like a classic New Delhi play: offer enough to move the other side, but ring-fence the sectors where disruption would be explosive.

That approach is visible in the commentary around the deal, too. Farmer groups and opposition leaders are already warning about what “zero tariff” or near-zero access on certain imports could do to Indian agriculture—suggesting the domestic debate will now shift from “did we sign?” to “what exactly did we concede, and where?”

So yes, India’s patience mattered. But it wasn’t passive patience. It was sequenced patience:

• withstand the tariff shock,
• refuse panic concessions,
• negotiate sector-by-sector,
• land a political-and-economic “middle” that can survive Parliament, protests, and markets.

Why this isn’t a one-off: the UK, Australia, and the EU “mother of all deals”

The India US Trade Deal agreement is arriving in a wider context: India’s accelerating free-trade and partnership push.

• UK: India and the UK signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) in July 2025, after announcing the conclusion of negotiations in May 2025.
• Australia: The Australia–India ECTA entered into force on 29 December 2022, an earlier but important proof that India can do ambitious tariff liberalisation when the structure fits domestic comfort.
• EU: The European Commission announced the EU–India FTA negotiations concluded on 26 January 2026, repeatedly described by officials and coverage as a landmark agreement—sometimes branded (even in official-facing materials) as a “Mother of All Deals.”

If you step back, the pattern is clear: India’s trade strategy is moving from a defensive era (“FTAs are risky”) to a selective global integration era (“FTAs are instruments of growth, supply chains, and strategic positioning”).

“These deals didn’t come easy”: the real costs and why they were accepted anyway

It’s easy to celebrate a signature. It’s harder to acknowledge what it takes to get there:

• Concessions are unavoidable. Every serious FTA involves trade-offs—tariffs reduced somewhere, standards accepted somewhere, procurement and services debated somewhere.
• Domestic sectors feel exposed. That’s why political and industry pushback begins immediately after announcements. For the EU deal, for example, Indian politicians have already raised concerns about impacts on local industries (wine/auto were mentioned in Maharashtra-related reporting).
• Geopolitics now sits inside trade. The India–US arrangement is reported to include pressure and movement around Russian oil purchases—showing that in 2026, trade is no longer “just trade.”

So the “cost” isn’t simply tariff cuts; it’s the constant domestic balancing act—protecting livelihoods while still signalling to the world that India is open for business.

The politics: what critics said—and what the new optics do to that narrative

Raghuram Rajan: warning against negotiating “with a gun to your head”

On the criticism, there is documented commentary from Raghuram Rajan cautioning about coercive tariff tactics—framing it as a pressure environment that complicates negotiation.

Rahul Gandhi: “weakness” framing vs the latest outcome

Regarding Rahul Gandhi, there is reporting from August 2025 in which he described US tariffs as “economic blackmail” and urged the Prime Minister not to let “weakness” override India’s interests.
And after the February 2026 deal news, he is reported to have attacked the government from a different angle—arguing it “sold out” farmers.

Here’s what the deal does politically: it shifts the arena. The debate is no longer “India can’t negotiate.” It becomes:

• What exactly did India give?
• Which sectors get protection, and which absorb competition?
• Is the tariff reset worth the purchase commitments and market openings?

That’s a much narrower—and for the government, more manageable—argument than a broad “India is weak” claim.

What to watch next

1. The joint text and sector annexes: early reports suggest more formal documentation is still coming; the details will decide who celebrates and who protests.
2. Farm and food politics: farmer groups and regional political units are already mobilising; their response will shape implementation politics.
3. Energy/geopolitics enforcement: if oil-import alignment is part of the understanding, monitoring and compliance could become a flashpoint.
4. “Chain reaction” FTAs: with EU conclusion now on the table, India’s negotiating leverage with other partners can rise—because market size plus demonstrated deal-making changes how counterparts price India’s ask.

Editor’s closing note

Tariffs fell sharply, India kept key protections, and India is simultaneously signing major trade agreements. The real punchline isn’t humiliation—it’s momentum.