Brahma Chelani, an expert on strategic issues, criticized it strongly India-US trade agreementargues that it reflects what he describes as US President Donald Trump’s increasingly “coercive and extractive” approach to trade diplomacy.
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)In a strongly worded assessment, Chelani said the deal is part of a pattern in which Washington uses its market power to secure large-scale commitments from partner countries, often at the expense of reducing the bilateral trade balance.
“The trade deal with India has added another feather in Trump’s extractive cap. His weaponized trade strategy – pledging $550 billion in US investment from Japan, $350 billion from South Korea and $70 billion from Malaysia – has now forced India to commit to $500 billion worth of American goods imports,” wrote X-A, a strategic study by Delhi’s Center for Policy Research.
There are the United States and India A framework for an “interim” has been finalized Agreement on Reciprocal and Mutually Beneficial Trade”, the White House announced late on Saturday, February 6. The framework marked a formal breakthrough after nearly a year of negotiations between the two countries and brought down US-imposed tariffs to 18 percent.
Follow for live updates
More Read
“But unlike the export-oriented economies of East and Southeast Asia, India is an import-dependent economy whose growth depends largely on domestic consumption. Total US-India bilateral goods trade was only $132.13 billion in 2025, forcing India to import roughly $100 billion a year — a bilateral relationship it could not have without the US. A dramatic jump in Indian exports, India’s overall merchandise trade deficit nearly doubled. $200 billion,” he added.
“Trump has thus proven once again that his trade strategy is more coercive and leveraged than even China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Targeting weaker Asian partners, Trump is using US market access not as leverage but as a blunt tool of economic coercion”.
Also Read | ‘India self-sufficient’: US not given any import facility for agricultural products, says GoyalChidambaram on India-US trade frameworkSenior Congress leader P Chidambaram has questioned the Indo-US trade framework, arguing that what has been announced is not an interim agreement and that “the framework of an interim agreement” is opaque, heavily tilted in favor of the US and raises serious concerns about tariff inequities and the real limits of India’s commitments.
More Read
“This is not even an interim agreement. It is a ‘framework for an interim agreement’. Article 2 and various bullet point frameworks make the agreement so opaque that unless one reads and analyzes the US orders of 2-4-2025, 5-9-2025, 8-3-2018 and 2018. 17-5-2019, the exact nature of the commitments made by the US can be understood. No,” senior Congress leader P Chidambaram wrote on X.
“One thing is clear: the Framework Agreement is heavily tilted in favor of the US and the inconsistencies are obvious. For example, while India will reduce or reduce tariffs on all US industrial products and a wide range of food and agricultural products, the US will impose an 18 per cent tariff on US goods, including Indian-made goods or textiles. Chemicals etc. and the US will withdraw tariffs only on ‘successful completion of the interim agreement’.
US tariffs on steel, copper and aluminum will apparently continue except for some aircraft and aircraft parts. The ongoing investigation by the United States under Section 232 will continue and the Framework Agreement will be subject to that investigation.
How is this ‘an interim agreement framework’ a matter of celebration?
