By Satyabrat Borah
The idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement between India and the European Union has always carried a certain weight. It is not merely about tariffs and market access, but about how two large, complex, and value-driven economic spaces choose to engage with each other in a world that is becoming more fragmented and uncertain. Against this background, India’s approach to negotiating the India–EU Free Trade Agreement can be described as mature and pragmatic. Rather than rushing into a deal for symbolic reasons, India focused on balance, fairness, and long-term national interest. This steady approach has helped ensure that the emerging agreement reflects India’s economic realities, development priorities, and strategic autonomy, while still offering meaningful gains to both sides.
For India, trade agreements have historically been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they open doors to new markets, technology, and investment. On the other hand, poorly negotiated agreements can expose vulnerable sectors to sudden competition, hurt domestic manufacturing, and reduce policy space for future governments. The European Union, with its deep internal market, strict regulatory frameworks, and strong negotiating capacity, is a particularly demanding partner. Any agreement with the EU inevitably goes beyond goods and tariffs and extends into services, data protection, labour standards, environmental norms, intellectual property, and regulatory convergence. India’s negotiators were therefore right to treat the talks with caution, patience, and clarity of purpose.
One of the most significant aspects of India’s performance in these negotiations has been its insistence on reciprocity rather than one-sided concessions. In earlier phases of India’s trade policy, there was sometimes an assumption that greater openness alone would automatically deliver growth. Experience has since shown that outcomes depend heavily on the structure of the deal. In the India–EU context, New Delhi made it clear that access to the Indian market, which is large, growing, and increasingly attractive, must be matched by meaningful access for Indian goods and services in Europe. This position reflects a more confident India, aware of its economic weight and less willing to accept asymmetrical arrangements.
Agriculture has been a particularly sensitive area, and India’s handling of it deserves attention. The European Union’s agricultural sector is heavily subsidised and highly protected through complex standards and regulations. Opening Indian agriculture indiscriminately to such competition could have had serious consequences for millions of small farmers. India therefore took a firm stand on protecting its core agricultural interests while remaining open to limited and carefully calibrated concessions. This was not protectionism for its own sake, but a recognition of the social and economic role agriculture plays in India. A mature trade policy does not sacrifice livelihoods at the altar of abstract efficiency, and India’s stance reflected this understanding.
Manufacturing and industrial policy were also central to India’s negotiating position. At a time when India is trying to strengthen domestic manufacturing through initiatives aimed at boosting production, exports, and employment, it could not afford an agreement that undermined these goals. India pushed for phased tariff reductions, safeguards, and flexibility in sensitive sectors such as automobiles, electronics, and chemicals. This approach allows Indian industry time to adjust, upgrade, and become more competitive, rather than being overwhelmed by established European firms overnight. In doing so, India aligned its trade commitments with its broader development strategy, which is a hallmark of pragmatic policymaking.
Services, an area where India has a clear comparative advantage, formed another important pillar of the negotiations. Indian professionals in information technology, healthcare, engineering, and other knowledge-based sectors have long faced barriers in the European market, including restrictive visa regimes and non-recognition of qualifications. India consistently highlighted the need for greater mobility and fair treatment of its service providers. While progress in this area is often slow and politically sensitive within the EU, India’s persistence helped keep services at the centre of the agreement rather than allowing it to become a one-sided deal focused only on European exports of goods.
The question of standards and regulations, often framed in terms of sustainability, labour rights, and environmental protection, has been one of the most complex aspects of the India–EU talks. The European Union places strong emphasis on these issues and increasingly seeks to embed them into its trade agreements. India did not reject these concerns outright, nor did it accept them uncritically. Instead, it argued for a realistic and differentiated approach that recognises varying levels of development and national circumstances. By doing so, India avoided being boxed into commitments that could later be used as trade barriers or instruments of pressure. This balanced position demonstrated that India is willing to engage with global norms, but not at the cost of its development space.
Intellectual property rights have historically been a point of friction between India and the European Union. India’s public health priorities, especially its role as a major producer of affordable generic medicines, require a flexible intellectual property regime. The EU, representing powerful pharmaceutical interests, has often pushed for stronger protections. In the current negotiations, India held its ground firmly. It made clear that access to medicines, both domestically and for developing countries that depend on Indian exports, is non-negotiable. This stance was not only in India’s national interest but also aligned with its broader global responsibilities. By resisting excessive intellectual property demands, India preserved a critical pillar of its healthcare and pharmaceutical ecosystem.
Another notable feature of India’s approach has been its emphasis on strategic autonomy. In an era marked by geopolitical rivalry, supply chain disruptions, and shifting alliances, trade agreements are no longer purely economic instruments. India was careful to ensure that the FTA with the European Union does not constrain its ability to engage with other partners or pursue independent policies. This does not mean India sees the EU as a rival or threat. On the contrary, it values the EU as an important partner. But maturity in diplomacy lies in building partnerships without over-dependence, and India’s negotiators kept this principle firmly in mind.
From the European Union’s perspective, India’s firmness may at times have been frustrating, but it also brought clarity. Negotiations based on unrealistic expectations or vague promises often collapse later or create long-term resentment. By clearly stating what it could and could not accept, India helped shape a more durable and credible agreement. This, in the long run, serves European interests as well, because it reduces the risk of disputes, backlash, or non-implementation after the agreement comes into force.
The domestic political economy of trade also influenced India’s approach. Trade agreements increasingly face scrutiny from industry groups, farmers, labour unions, and civil society. India’s government was aware that a deal perceived as unfair or imposed from above could face resistance at home. By negotiating carefully and communicating the rationale behind its positions, India aimed to build broader domestic acceptance. This is an often-overlooked aspect of trade diplomacy, but it is crucial for the success of any agreement. A fair deal on paper means little if it lacks legitimacy and support within the country.
It is also important to see the India–EU FTA in the context of India’s evolving trade strategy. In recent years, India has become more selective about entering trade agreements. It has walked away from deals it considered unbalanced and has shown greater willingness to negotiate bilaterally rather than accept broad, one-size-fits-all arrangements. This does not signal a retreat from global trade, but rather a more thoughtful engagement with it. The negotiations with the European Union fit squarely into this pattern. India was open to a deal, but only one that met its criteria of fairness and long-term benefit.
The economic logic behind this approach is sound. India’s economy is large and diversified, with significant internal demand. While exports are important, India is not in a position where it must accept any terms just to gain market access. This gives it leverage, which it used judiciously rather than arrogantly. A mature negotiating partner understands when to push, when to compromise, and when to wait. India demonstrated this maturity by allowing talks to proceed at a pace dictated by substance rather than deadlines.
There is also a broader normative dimension to India’s stance. By insisting on development-sensitive terms, India implicitly challenges the idea that global trade rules should be shaped primarily by advanced economies. It asserts that large developing economies have both the right and the responsibility to shape agreements that reflect their realities. In doing so, India contributes to a more plural and balanced global trade architecture. This does not mean rejecting high standards, but rather adapting them in a way that is inclusive and fair.
As the contours of the India–EU FTA take shape, it becomes increasingly clear that India did well to negotiate as it did. The agreement, as envisioned, promises to deepen economic ties, boost trade and investment, and strengthen cooperation in areas such as technology, climate action, and innovation. At the same time, it avoids the pitfalls of over-commitment and preserves space for domestic policy choices. This combination is not accidental. It is the result of careful preparation, institutional learning, and a clear sense of national interest.
Critics may argue that a tougher stance risks delaying benefits or missing opportunities. There is some truth in the idea that trade-offs are inevitable. However, speed is not the only measure of success in trade negotiations. Quality matters, and so does sustainability. A hastily concluded agreement that leads to deindustrialisation, job losses, or social discontent would ultimately weaken both economic performance and political stability. India’s pragmatic approach seeks to avoid such outcomes, even if it means exercising patience.
In a world where many countries are rethinking globalisation and questioning the value of open markets, the India–EU FTA stands out as an example of how engagement can still work when guided by realism and mutual respect. India did not approach the negotiations with ideological rigidity, nor with undue deference. It treated the European Union as a partner, not a patron, and negotiated accordingly. This shift in posture reflects India’s growing confidence on the global stage.
Ultimately, the significance of India’s performance in the India–EU FTA negotiations goes beyond the agreement itself. It signals a broader transformation in how India sees its role in the world economy. No longer content to be a passive rule-taker, India is increasingly acting as a rule-shaper, within the limits of its power and interests. This does not mean confrontation or isolation, but constructive engagement on more equal terms.
The mature and pragmatic handling of the India–EU FTA thus offers important lessons. It shows that protecting national interest and engaging with global partners are not mutually exclusive goals. It demonstrates that fairness in trade is not about refusing compromise, but about ensuring that compromises are balanced and informed. And it underlines the idea that long-term development, social stability, and strategic autonomy must remain central to economic policymaking.
As India and the European Union move towards finalising and implementing their agreement, the real test will lie in how its provisions are executed and adjusted over time. No trade agreement is perfect or static. What matters is whether it provides a framework that can adapt to changing circumstances without undermining core interests. By negotiating carefully and confidently, India has maximised the chances that the India–EU FTA will be such a framework. In that sense, India did well not just to secure a deal, but to shape one that reflects maturity, pragmatism, and a clear-eyed view of its place in the global economy. (PTI)
