It is inevitable that the India-US trade deal reflects a structural imbalance, says Brahma Chellaney
India-US trade deal: Chellaney gave the example of Singapore, a city state, that managed to secure a 10 per cent US tariff by capitalising on its strengths including its role as a global hub for semiconductor packaging and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
- Feb 11, 2026,
- Updated Feb 11, 2026 1:13 PM IST
The structural imbalance in the India-US trade deal is inevitable, mostly due to power differentials and asymmetry in negotiations, reasoned geostrategist Brahma Chellaney. He argued that leverage is the “currency of diplomacy” and “reciprocity is its governing principle”.
“Because of power differentials, asymmetry is inherent in international negotiations. The parties are rarely equal in economic or military strength. But unequal power does not predetermine unequal outcomes. Weaker states often secure advantageous terms by leveraging their own strengths,” said Chellaney.
He gave the example of Singapore, a city state, that managed to secure a 10 per cent US tariff by capitalising on its strengths including its role as a global hub for semiconductor packaging and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
If that deal is contrasted with the one India negotiated with the US, the details would feel skewed – but there’s multiple things to be factored in too. While India is the “fastest-growing major economy and the largest untapped market for Western exporters”, it had to negotiate the deal when it was subject to 50 per cent tariffs. “For six months, it absorbed the draconian duties without any tangible response, effectively negotiating under overt pressure — despite the longstanding diplomatic maxim against bargaining under coercion,” he said.
The lesson to learn from Trump’s abrupt reversal on Greenland and the suspension of 10 per cent tariffs on its European allies is that “resistance can alter outcomes”. “Against India, however, hardball tactics proved more effective as the Indian government willingly chose to negotiate with a gun to its head,” he said.
Chellaney said that it is not surprising that the interim agreement reflects a structural imbalance. “India’s obligations are front-loaded, quantifiable and monitorable, while US commitments are phased, conditional and, in key respects, reversible,” he said.
The India-US trade deal has been severely criticised by the Opposition. They believe the Indian government was “forced to concede” and give up more than it will receive. The government as well as Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal has, on the other hand, claimed that it is a “win-win” deal.
Congress general secretary, communications, Jairam Ramesh, after Bangladesh announced that it has finalised a trade deal with the US, said, "This is not a calibrated opening but a coerced opening. India has been forced to concede more than what it has got. And now our much-touted advantage over Bangladesh in textile exports to the US has vanished with the details of the US-Bangladesh trade deal also having just been announced."
The Congress said on Wednesday that the deal reflects an "abject failure" of our "political huglomacy" as well as economic diplomacy. Jairam Ramesh said no matter what spin the "PM and his lie-brigade" may give, the hard reality is that the US has extracted more from India than it has conceded.
The structural imbalance in the India-US trade deal is inevitable, mostly due to power differentials and asymmetry in negotiations, reasoned geostrategist Brahma Chellaney. He argued that leverage is the “currency of diplomacy” and “reciprocity is its governing principle”.
“Because of power differentials, asymmetry is inherent in international negotiations. The parties are rarely equal in economic or military strength. But unequal power does not predetermine unequal outcomes. Weaker states often secure advantageous terms by leveraging their own strengths,” said Chellaney.
He gave the example of Singapore, a city state, that managed to secure a 10 per cent US tariff by capitalising on its strengths including its role as a global hub for semiconductor packaging and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
If that deal is contrasted with the one India negotiated with the US, the details would feel skewed – but there’s multiple things to be factored in too. While India is the “fastest-growing major economy and the largest untapped market for Western exporters”, it had to negotiate the deal when it was subject to 50 per cent tariffs. “For six months, it absorbed the draconian duties without any tangible response, effectively negotiating under overt pressure — despite the longstanding diplomatic maxim against bargaining under coercion,” he said.
The lesson to learn from Trump’s abrupt reversal on Greenland and the suspension of 10 per cent tariffs on its European allies is that “resistance can alter outcomes”. “Against India, however, hardball tactics proved more effective as the Indian government willingly chose to negotiate with a gun to its head,” he said.
Chellaney said that it is not surprising that the interim agreement reflects a structural imbalance. “India’s obligations are front-loaded, quantifiable and monitorable, while US commitments are phased, conditional and, in key respects, reversible,” he said.
The India-US trade deal has been severely criticised by the Opposition. They believe the Indian government was “forced to concede” and give up more than it will receive. The government as well as Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal has, on the other hand, claimed that it is a “win-win” deal.
Congress general secretary, communications, Jairam Ramesh, after Bangladesh announced that it has finalised a trade deal with the US, said, "This is not a calibrated opening but a coerced opening. India has been forced to concede more than what it has got. And now our much-touted advantage over Bangladesh in textile exports to the US has vanished with the details of the US-Bangladesh trade deal also having just been announced."
The Congress said on Wednesday that the deal reflects an "abject failure" of our "political huglomacy" as well as economic diplomacy. Jairam Ramesh said no matter what spin the "PM and his lie-brigade" may give, the hard reality is that the US has extracted more from India than it has conceded.