The article critically examines the Indo-US framework agreement on trade, highlighting the thin line between pragmatism and the abdication of judgment and accountability. It explores the public discourse around the agreement, emphasizing two main defenses:
Defenses of the Agreement
- Triumphalist America Lobby:
- Views the agreement as a strategic breakthrough for India, deepening ties with the United States.
- Economic Pragmatists:
- Believes the agreement is better than the status quo by removing Russia-related tariffs and potentially boosting Indian exports.
- Sees potential for renewed market access and inducing domestic reforms.
Critique of the Agreement
- Asymmetrical Trade Terms:
- The agreement is not reciprocal, favoring the US with lower tariffs for American goods.
- India has committed to purchasing $500 billion worth of American goods over five years.
- Impact on India's Strategic Autonomy:
- The agreement could reshape India's industrial strategy and defense procurement.
- India's foreign relations, particularly with Russia, may be increasingly influenced by external pressure, undermining its autonomy.
Strategic Implications
- American Leverage:
- The US prioritizes its interests, potentially using India as an instrument in its strategy against China.
- Imperial Dominance:
- The agreement reflects a shift towards transactional dominance by the US, with demands for regulatory conformity.
Conclusion
The agreement is critiqued for embedding asymmetries that favor American leverage, illustrating a potential loss of India’s independent judgment and strategic autonomy. It is framed not as a triumph but as a diminishment masked by optimistic official announcements.
