Foreign & Public Diplomacy

India and the United States reached an interim trade agreement earlier this month—after months of public wrangling and various intemperate statements on the part of some U.S. officials, ranging from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to trade advisor Peter Navarro.

In the wake of the announcement, key members of India’s principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress, have predictably attacked elements of the deal, arguing that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government has conceded too much to the United States and received little in return. Some have even characterized the accord as a “surrender” to U.S. demands.

India and the United States reached an interim trade agreement earlier this month—after months of public wrangling and various intemperate statements on the part of some U.S. officials, ranging from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to trade advisor Peter Navarro.

In the wake of the announcement, key members of India’s principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress, have predictably attacked elements of the deal, arguing that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government has conceded too much to the United States and received little in return. Some have even characterized the accord as a “surrender” to U.S. demands.

One of the critics’ principal allegations is that the deal threatens Indian farmers by opening up agricultural markets to U.S. farm products. Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, New Delhi’s key trade negotiator, has insisted that the accord protects the interests of vulnerable farmers by excluding U.S. dairy and poultry from the concessions. But this debate cannot be settled soon, especially because many of the particulars of the accord remain to be sorted out.

India and the United States will likely succeed in tackling remaining differences and move to implement the agreement. But........

© Foreign Policy