The first question that pops up on reading the ‘United States-India Joint Statement’ is: why? Why the timing, the rush on India’s part to declare a trade deal with the US right now, issue such a joint statement, when most other trade partners of the US have decided to wait for the US Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the Trump tariffs? And why so many massive concessions? Why would the Indian government give so much away and make so many new commitments that are either impossible to deliver or would spell disaster for important elements of the Indian economy? Is the reward of slightly lower tariffs (on goods exports that currently account for less than 2% of India’s GDP) enough, especially when the US tariff rates remain high, at many multiples of the tariffs India faced with that country before April 2025? And finally, why would India submit to active monitoring by the US of whether it is continuing to buy any oil from Russia? Why would a once-proud nation sacrifice so much self-respect, dignity and national policy autonomy, especially vis-a-vis a known bully like Trump who will not hesitate to take advantage of such a show of weakness?This question of “why” becomes all the more pressing the more one considers the document, which remains vague on details but is still startling enough to suggest almost complete capitulation by the Indian government. No wonder US officials are celebrating this “deal”, which could hardly be more favourable for them even before other concessions likely to be demanded (say, on investment rules for US companies and intellectual property rights) are revealed. Perhaps the government believes that sheer and continuous disinformation will do the trick, as it has served them well in so many other ways before. The official Indian press release on the agreement is breathless in its enthusiasm. It is entitled “India Achieves Landmark Trade Victory, Unlocks $30-Trillion U.S. Market for Exports Across Key Sectors”, which would be impressive if it bore any resemblance to the truth. Unfortunately, it does not.Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal. February 7, 2026. Photo: Atul Yadav/PTIConsider the supposed “gains” for India. The press statement claims that “India secured preferential access to a US $ 30 trillion U.S. market”, but that is completely misleading since it refers to the total size of US demand for goods and services. Actual preferential access, such as zero tariffs for Indian exports, are provided for only $10 billion worth of Indian exports. Beyond this, we get only the bland statement that “the United States and India commit to provide each other preferential market access in sectors of respective interest on a sustained basis”, which promises nothing.Meanwhile, the reduction of the “reciprocal tariff” of 25% is being celebrated, but the only sectors where for which India will face tariffs of 18% are identified in the Joint Statement as “textile and apparel, leather and footwear, plastic and rubber, organic chemicals, home décor, artisanal products, and certain machinery”. In fact, this still makes India uncompetitive in key sectors like garments and machinery when compared to rival countries like Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam (facing 19 or 20% tariffs), once unit costs and prices are factored in. The other sectors of real export interest for India, such as generic pharmaceuticals, gems and diamonds, and aircraft parts, will get no such benefit now. Instead, they will have to wait and be “subject to the successful conclusion of the Interim Agreement” – and until then, the ridiculous “reciprocal tariffs” will continue to be 25%. So the likely gains in terms of increased access to the US market are likely to be minimal.The only supposedly saving grace is that the additional tariff of 25% imposed upon India for buying Russian oil has been lifted. But here, the real sting in the tail is not in the official statement, but in the Executive Order signed by President Trump on February 6, giving the US Commerce Secretary the mandate to track India’s oil imports to monitor possible Russian imports, with the threat that either “direct or indirect” imports from Russia would automatically trigger the additional 25% tariff. For such paltry benefits, what concessions has India made? The list is large and would be horrifying if it were not so unlikely as to be humorous. The first most startling one is that “India intends to purchase $500 billion of US energy products, aircraft and aircraft parts, precious metals, technology products, and coking coal over the next 5 years.” At $100 billion per year, this would be more than double of ALL of India’s current imports from the US, for only a subset of goods currently imported. There is no way that India can actually fulfil this with its existing trade deficit, so the hope must be that the US president’s attention span is too short for him to keep track. (Perhaps it can be filed away under “other unlikely promises” such as European countries – with the honourable exception of Spain – all promising to increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP.)What is more frightening – because more immediate and likely – is that “India will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a wide range of US food and agricultural products, including dried distillers’ grains (DDGs), red sorghum for animal feed, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits, and additional products.” Read that again: India will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a wide range of US food and agricultural products! This is not a tall claim made by a US president given to making tall claims, this is a joint statement issued by US and Indian governments, so there is little doubt that it should be taken seriously. And of course, the implications for the economy and for livelihoods of most people are dire.It may not surprise those of us who have become cynical about the economic policies of the past decade that the government has chosen to sacrifice the interests of farmers and small enterprises that employ the bulk of working people in the country. But the apparent belief that the government can get away with it is surprising, when it has already been defeated before by the sheer strength of the farmers’ movement, and when it already facing significant dissatisfaction from young people unable to find employment especially because of the travails of small and medium enterprises.The concessions made in agriculture are potentially very damaging, notwithstanding the Commerce Minister’s claims to the contrary. Consider sorghum, a millet that was ironically celebrated and sought to be promoted domestically by this very government. Currently India imports minuscule amounts of sorghum, and is in fact a net exporter. The current tariff on sorghum is 57.75% (50% + 10% Social Welfare Surcharge + 5% Integrated Goods and Services Tax). Now the US, which is the largest exporter of sorghum in the world, with heavily subsidised production, will be allowed to send its sorghum into the country with no or much lower tariffs. This will definitely affect farmers especially in dryland areas in Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Karnataka. Representative image of the sorghum plant. Photo: Wikifarmer/Niranjan ThakurSimilarly, just two months ago, the National Mission on Edible Oils, a supposedly flagship programme of the Modi government, reiterated its goal “to strengthen the country’s oilseed ecosystem and achieve Atmanirbharta (self-reliance) in edible oil production”. Yet importing low tariff or duty-free soyabean oil will do precisely the opposite, destroying the viability of soyabean farmers in India. The most affected farmers will be in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Telangana, Karnataka and Gujarat, which account for the bulk of such cultivation. The argument made by apologists is that these imports will provide cheaper animal feed for poultry and other small livestock, along with cheaper imports of dried distillers grains or DDGs. But this can be achieved through other means without destroying the livelihood of farmers engaged in producing crops that are crucially important for food sovereignty and coping with changing climate conditions. Meanwhile, the impact on horticulturalists will also be severe – from apple growers and producers of dry fruit in Kashmir to those producing fruit and nuts across the country. This sector has been the fastest growing segment of Indian agriculture in terms of value added, so it is quite remarkable that the Indian government has so blithely sacrificed the interests of this group. We do not yet have other details about the full concessions that have been or could be made in merchandise trade, but there is absolutely no doubt that these will affect small- and medium- sized enterprises in both agriculture and manufacturing, in an economy in which inadequate employment generation and low livelihoods have already emerged as the major problems. Meanwhile, it is only too likely that the US will demand equivalent or even greater concessions in the form of tighter intellectual property rules (that have already been granted by India in its trade deals with the UK and the EU) and special treatment of its own multinational companies, as it has sought in other deals. Giving on those would have huge negative impacts on people in India, and could affect environmental conditions and access to drugs, along with other fallout.So once again the question: why? The question becomes even more pressing once we take note of the fact that India’s exports in April-December 2025 actually increased by 2.2% over the same period in the previous year, despite the adverse effect of Trump’s tariffs. Clearly, our exporters have been able to make up for the decline in exports to the US by increasing exports to other markets, so why the panic rush to confirm such a one-sided deal?The answer is obviously not in the economy; there must be other elements in play. These could be geostrategic calculations (although those would be mistaken); they could stem from the need to protect some industrialists currently facing cases in the US; or they could simply be a desperate attempt by the government to divert attention from other growing concerns that people are finally beginning to express. Whatever, the reasoning, it is insufficient justification for an unbalanced and potentially devastating trade agreement.Jayati Ghosh is a development economist and a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.