Speaking during the debate on demands for grants relating to the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations on March 08, 1949, prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru laid the normative foundations of India’s international foreign and trade policy by saying “what does independence consist of? It consists fundamentally and basically of foreign relations. That is the test of independence…Once foreign relations go out of your hand, into the charge of somebody else, to that extent and in that measure, you are not independent”.Pointing to the All India Congress Party’s Jaipur resolution of 18 December 1948 (which stated that “India, however, desires to maintain all such links with other countries as do not come in the way of her freedom of action and independence”), PM Nehru went on to strongly assert that “in our external, or domestic policy…or in our economic policy, we (Government of India) do not propose to accept anything that involves us in the slightest degree of dependence on any other authority…If, however, there is interference with us, whether military, political or economic, we shall resist it”. Every government since India attainted independence in 1947 has scrupulously adhered to this policy which is why India has risen to great heights.Juxtapose this with what prime minister Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government have signalled in the US-India Trade Deal (which according to Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, has not yet been completed, even though BJP has celebrated the ‘deal’ on every fora). After eight months of avoiding president Trump’s calls (which the BJP spun as a diplomatic masterstroke), PM Modi has seemingly surrendered by agreeing to an 18% tax on Indian goods to the United States of America (USA). According to Trump, PM Modi has also agreed to a zero tax on all American products into India, halting the purchase of Russian oil (oil imports from Russia accounted for 35.1% of India’s total oil imports in November 2025) and purchasing half a trillion dollars worth of American goods, including energy, agricultural products, technology, coal etc. All of this is from a reading of statements by American and Indian officials, since no joint statement or formal framework has yet been issued so far. Given this, this seems less like a classical trade deal or trade agreement, and more of a declaration.Dissecting the deal that isn’t yet a dealFirstly, if true, this unequal deal compromises India’s economic interests. As a former adviser to India’s prime minister has pointed out, after the 1998 nuclear tests at Pokhran by PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government, the US imposed sanctions on India, and imposed tariffs worth 3.31% on Indian goods. After the Nuclear Deal was signed under PM Manmohan Singh, the average American tariffs were reduced to 2.93%. The tariffs Modi has negotiated for India, which the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) is raucously feting him for, are 15.07% more than what Indian goods attracted before 2014.Furthermore, sectors like steel, copper, aluminium, automobile and automobile components (which collectively exported about USD 8.3 billion to the US, amounting to 10.4% of India’s total exports to USA) will still face duties under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Given these duties are not waived even if a Free Trade agreement is signed, Indian goods from these sectors will continue to face tariffs between 20-50%.Even though some in BJP’s ecosystem are obfuscating these facts by pointing to higher tariffs on Bangladesh and Vietnam (20%), Pakistan (19%) and China (34%), many of these nations also receive a special Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) concession of 5%, which America has withdrawn from India. Furthermore, the BJP’s propagated theory of comparative misery (we have it better than the rest) is misguided because it assumes that lesser tariffs gives India greater advantage.The reality is that many of these nations, especially China, Bangladesh and Vietnam, enjoy a competitive advantage over India (either by being better integrated into regional supply chains, attracting high Foreign Direct Investments, having deeper supply chains and boasting of strong manufacturing hubs, all of which the BJP government has failed to actualise over these last 11 years). Meanwhile, American products into India will attract zero tariffs. Only those unburdened with basic common sense can spin this as a win for India.Secondly, according to Trump, PM Modi has agreed to stop buying Russian oil that has forced Indian refiners to seek clarity from the BJP government on the future of Russian oil purchases. If true, this would not matter much, given Indian oil imports from Russia dropped from 31% of total oil imports (in the fourth quarter of 2025) to 09% (in January 2026), according to a HSBC Global Research report. Furthermore, since the discount on Russian crude oil has also reduced, it makes commercial sense to explore viable alternatives (which India is already doing, importing from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates etc., although the benefit of cheaper oil is still not being passed on to Indian consumers who still pay historically high rates for fuel).Clearly the BJP government feels access to US markets capital and technology is more important than marginally cheaper oil from Russia. However, there is a principle of national sovereignty at stake here. Assuming the BJP government genuinely scaled down oil imports from Russia under American pressure, this would mark the third time it has buckled (after “zeroing out” India’s imports of Iranian and Venezuelan oil earlier). After decrying US’ penalties as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”, why has the BJP government allowed another nation to dictate its import policies? Apart from weakening decades-old ties with Iran and Russia, this also marks an unconscionable interference in India’s economic sovereignty.Thirdly, President Trump asserted that PM Modi has committed to buying half a trillion dollars (Rs 45.5 lakh crores) worth of American goods. That’s slightly less than India’s total expenditure in Budget 2026-27 of Rs 53.5 lakh crore. Given US-India bilateral trade in 2025 stood at USD 132.13 billion (of which India’s imports account for USD 45.62 billion) this effectively means a USD 460 billion increase for India! This is especially problematic because India’s total import bill in 2025 was USD 915 billion (with a trade deficit of USD 263.31 billion).Even if the burden of importing goods worth USD 500 billion is spread evenly over five years (as claimed by an Indian official), our annual trade deficit would mushroom to USD 363 billion annually! Furthermore, if over half of our imports are to come from the US, it would leave India dangerously vulnerable to US diktats (a very real threat given how President Trump has weaponised trade). Additionally, it would severely constrict India’s fiscal room for export market diversification (ability to purchase essential goods from other nations). Apart from the fact that this seems less a partnership, and more like colonial tribute, this unfair deal would also consign the much propagated Make in India initiative to the dustbin of history.Fourthly, US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that “New US-India deal will export more American farm products to India’s massive market, lifting prices, and pumping cash into rural America” thereby helping reduce the US’ USD 1.3 billion dollar agricultural trade deficit with India. Although India already imports nearly USD 1.8 billion of agricultural products (tree nuts, soybean oil, ethyl alcohol, and cotton) from America, the key question is whether India will diversify imports beyond these agricultural products and open up the domestic agricultural sector.So far, India has scrupulously insulated India’s dairy and agriculture markets from foreign agricultural products. In fact, India did not sign the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in both 2012 and 2019 to protect Indian agriculture, dairy and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) from foreign competition. Given this, if the BJP government has indeed opened the door for US agricultural products (as US officials seem to be suggesting), it would be catastrophic for India’s farmers (given the US government subsidises its agricultural sector by USD 40.5 billion in 2025). It would also be political suicide for the BJP given it would alienate an organised farming class which has historically enjoyed societal and cultural support.Questions for PM Modi and the BJP GovernmentOver the past decade, the BJP’s vast propaganda machinery has vacillated between projecting Prime Minister Modi as a global strongman stridently defending India’s national interest (laal ankh, 56 inch chaati etc.) and a global statesman with deep personal friendships with world leaders. If the piecemeal information that has been released on the US-India trade deal is anything to go by, clearly both these are nothing more than well-packaged puff-pieces.Looking at this objectively, president Trump had to blink eventually. There are many key stakeholders in America who are genuinely invested in India remaining a democratic counter to China (at least in the short run, which is why the US has already surpassed China to become India’s largest trading partner), and would be advising Trump accordingly. Plus those invested in deepening India and USA relations over the past 25 years (the product of bipartisan efforts in both nations) would ensure bilateral relations would not be jettisoned so easily (although Trump did try his best to do so).Given this, and despite the straining of ties over the past year, a deeper US-India economic relationship was inevitable (although what Trump and Modi have agreed to is admittedly a limited and conditional deal, not a full agreement). Given this relationship has a momentum of its own, PM Modi’s and the BJP government’s efforts should not be over exaggerated, since they are continuing what was started long ago.However, there are three glaring questions that PM Modi needs to answer. Firstly, questions have been raised with regard to the timing of this deal. Summarising them, they fall into three broad buckets – Is there any linkage between the deal’s announcement and the indictment of an Indian businessman in America? Or with the leak of three million Epstein documents (with the possibility of more being released)? Or was this deal rushed through anticipating the Quad summits (scheduled for the first quarter of 2026) and the G-20 summit (in December 2026)?Since the government has assiduously eschewed briefing Parliament, speculation is understandably rife. Irrespective of which side of the aisle they fall in, every conscientious patriot would be deeply concerned at the suggestion that the Government of India was motivated by any consideration apart from the national interest (which is what these three questions imply). Given this, the BJP government must immediately brief Parliament (and not resort to press conferences to dismiss the Opposition and praise the Prime Minister, as Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal did) to reassure the nation of its sincerity and intentions.Secondly, it is also unclear why critical decisions related to India are being taken by circumscribing Parliament, which PM Modi himself hailed as the supreme temple of Indian democracy. In the last decade, PM Modi has repeatedly chosen to speak at the nation (not to or with the nation) by bypassing Parliament and press conferences, relying instead on monologues on social media platforms, television and radio.Even the US-India trade deal was announced on social media platforms, while Parliament is in session, upturning seven decades of parliamentary convention. Sadly it now appears that even this limited one-way communication is breaking down. Critical announcements on India’s economic and geopolitical policies seem to be made by the US administration, with the Indian government meekly following suit. Surely the nation should get to know of such crucial matters from its own government, and not from foreign leaders.Finally, even though a trade deal with USA was both desirable and inevitable, why is PM Modi giving president Trump a carte blanche to dictate key aspects of India’s foreign and economic policy? Should the pursuit of a deal mean that the Government of India surrender the nation’s sovereignty and national interests to the US, as PM Modi is doing? Why PM Modi and External Affairs minister S. Jaishankar feel the need to kowtow to the Trump administration is incomprehensible, given India’s growth doesn’t depend on the US alone.Over the past seven decades, India has always maximised its self interest and diversified economic relationships. Given the fracturing of norms and institutions of the neoliberal world order, India needs to aggressively stitch up partnerships with US, China, Russia, European Union, ASEAN nations, Africa, Central Asian nations, and West Asian nations (among others). That necessitates steadfastly adhering to non-alignment, which the BJP government is thankfully beginning to do, which is why it is able to close multiple free trade agreements (something BJP conveniently glosses over).Even though this is a welcome course correction after ten years of a disjointed foreign policy (characterised by performative and personalised diplomacy), India cannot and should not outsource its foreign policy to other nations. Doing so suggests political weakness and abdication by our government, a pattern unfortunately mirrored in the explosive revelations by general Naravane, in External Affairs minister Dr Jaishankar’s defeatist assertion that “I am not going pick up a fight with a bigger economy” referring to China’s aggression in India and a lack of a strong political counter to president Trump’s claims (made over 80 times so far) that he mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan (which if true, would mark an unprecedented deviation from India’s established policy of not tolerating any arbitration in bilateral matters).Ultimately, PM Modi and the BJP government must remember that their primary responsibility is to the people of India, and to maximise India’s national interest. Only if they adhere to this cardinal truth can they forge an aatmanirbhar (self sufficient) Bharat, instead of an aatmanirbhar US. If the BJP finds it difficult to do so, they can courage from PM Nehru’s firm commitment that if “there is interference with us, whether military, political or economic, we shall resist it”.Pushparaj Deshpande is Samruddha Bharat Foundation’s Director & Editor of The Great Indian Manthan (Penguin).