Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The India-U.S. trade deal has been one of the most discussed topics in recent weeks. From the beginning, the negotiations were conducted in the face of significant political pressure from Washington, a situation that many in New Delhi viewed as particularly intense for a country considered a strategic partner. The headline outcome of reducing reciprocal U.S. tariffs on Indian goods to 18% has been presented as a diplomatic success. However, from an economic perspective, it appears to offer only a modest advantage over India’s primary Asian competitors.
Tariffs in the crowded Indo-Pacific market
It is important to note that the 18% tariff is not significantly lower than the rates currently applied to other countries in the Indo-Pacific region. Vietnam faces tariffs of roughly 20%, while Bangladesh’s tariffs are around 19% and Japan and South Korea are 15%. China, which is often considered a major geopolitical rival of the U.S., has now only a 10% reciprocal tariff rate. In practice, this could potentially give India a competitive edge of only two to three percentage points in many sectors, but this margin is often absorbed by structural cost differences.
In the apparel market, which is valued at approximately $120 billion per year, India’s contribution is around $9 billion, representing about 7% of the total imports. Hanoi, Dhaka, and Beijing are all significant players in this global trade network, with Vietnam exporting over $22 billion, Bangladesh around $11 billion, and China, despite tariff pressures, still exceeding $25 billion in shipments. In a sector where operating margins often range from 3% to 6%, a two percentage point tariff differential may not always be a significant factor.
It has been said that pharmaceuticals are among India’s strengths. The U.S. has a significant reliance on foreign pharmaceutical suppliers, with an annual import value of over $234 billion. Indian firms play a notable role in this landscape, contributing approximately $13 billion in finished formulations and active ingredients, which account for nearly 40% of generic prescriptions by volume. Historically, tariffs in this sector were minimal. However, since October 2025, the U.S. has imposed a 100% tariff on branded and patented drugs to encourage domestic production. However, these tariffs seem to remain even after the trade deal.
With annual Indian goods exports to the United States totaling roughly $86 billion, even a relatively optimistic expansion of 6-8% under improved tariff certainty could potentially result in $5-7 billion in additional exports. It is estimated that the net GDP impact would fall in the range of 0.15-0.3%. For an economy approaching $4 trillion, the gain is measurable but might not be considered transformative.
Oil Diplomacy and the Cost of Alignment
At the same time, the issue of Russian crude purchases has been mentioned in political discourse as the main condition surrounding the trade framework. India’s oil imports, estimated at approximately 5.2 million barrels per day, amount to close to 1.9 billion barrels annually. In recent years, about 35% of India’s oil imports were sourced from Russia, equivalent to around 1.4-1.6 million barrels per day. It is worth noting that Russian Urals crude has historically traded at a discount aroud $10 per barrel compared to Brent-linked benchmarks. It is estimated that India could potentially save more than $5 billion annually on its imports of Russian oil, amounting to roughly 550–600 million barrels. Moreover, it is possible that technical recalibration of refineries optimized for medium-sour Urals blends could require further investment and could temporarily reduce refining margins.
These concerns are further compounded by India’s indication that it may consider reducing or eliminating tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and a broad range of agricultural products. U.S. producers of corn, soybeans, dairy, and processed foods operate with high productivity and federal support mechanisms in agriculture. Greater access to the Indian market could put downward pressure on domestic prices in sensitive categories, which would affect millions of smallholder farmers whose margins are often thin and whose productivity remains significantly lower than that of mechanized U.S. agribusinesses. Since agriculture supports over 46% of India’s workforce, the distributional consequences could be substantial, even if aggregate consumer prices decline modestly.
Benefit First, Pressure Last
The broader context of the negotiations must be considered. U.S. trade policy has demonstrated significant volatility in recent years, with tariffs being imposed, suspended, and recalibrated in rapid succession. A tariff advantage gained today could disappear if Washington reduces duties for competing Asian exporters or introduces new measures in response to political cycles. Therefore, the projected export gains is totally unstable.
Ultimately, the agreement provides India with measurable but limited economic benefits while exposing it to potentially higher energy costs and intensified domestic competition. At the Munich Security Conference in February 2026, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, in the context of one more Marco Rubio jab, emphasized that India’s decisions would strictly be based on a calculation of real economic benefit and national interest, not external pressure.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.