Opinion Trade deals with EU, US show are not surrender or triumph. They are an evolution

This shift is not unique to India. Supply chains, technology flows, financial access and energy sourcing now sit alongside traditional diplomacy as tools of influence. India’s experience reflects a broader structural change in international relations: Economics and security are no longer distinct domains but interlocking theatres of competition and cooperation.

For India, this moment inevitably raises the familiar question of strategic autonomy. Historically, India’s foreign policy sought to maximise freedom of manoeuvre through diversified partnerships, rather than formal alliances. Yet, autonomy was never synonymous with equidistance or rigid neutrality. Flexibility, not ideological symmetry, has been the enduring thread.

The debate over Russian oil imports illustrates this pragmatic tradition. Discounted crude provided short-term economic advantages for India, helping manage inflation and fiscal pressures. But longer-term considerations — access to Western markets, capital flows, advanced technologies, and defence collaboration — inevitably factor into policy choices. Diversification of energy sources, rather than abrupt disengagement from any one supplier, is the likely trajectory.

Critics sometimes interpret these adjustments as evidence of diminished autonomy. Yet autonomy is less about distance from power centres than about capability within them. Economic strength, technological depth, resilient supply chains and diversified partnerships generate real strategic choice. Isolation rarely does. Countries embedded in global economic networks often possess greater leverage.

India’s growing weight is evident in the fact that tariffs imposed by the US were reversed. Washington chose negotiation rather than prolonged economic confrontation. Reciprocity — the US seeking India as a strategic partner even as India values access to Western markets and technology — defines the relationship. The language of “sufficient alignment” embedded in recent US policy statements signals an era of conditional partnership. Monitoring mechanisms and potential tariff snapbacks indicate that economic engagement may increasingly come with expectations about geopolitical behaviour. This does not negate partnership, but underscores that major-power relationships today often combine cooperation with continuous evaluation. Managing such conditionality without eroding policy independence will require careful calibration.

India’s parallel engagement with the EU reinforces the importance of diversification. The trade agreement deepens access to high-value manufacturing markets and advanced technologies. Taken together, strengthened ties with both the US and the EU enhance India’s negotiating space. In a fragmented global economy marked by protectionism and geopolitical rivalry, diversified economic anchors are strategic insurance.

As the multilateral trading system weakens and the WTO struggles to function effectively, bilateral and plurilateral arrangements are likely to dominate. India’s active participation in this evolving architecture reflects adaptation rather than acquiescence.

The post-Cold War era of relatively frictionless globalisation is giving way to what might be called geoeconomic competition. Technology ecosystems, energy corridors, access to critical minerals, semiconductor supply chains and digital infrastructure have become arenas of contestation. Countries able to integrate into these networks, while retaining domestic capacity, stand to benefit most. None of this suggests ideological alignment in the traditional sense. India’s foreign policy continues to engage multiple partners without formal alliance commitments. But pluralism today operates within tighter economic interdependence. Trade-offs are unavoidable. The challenge lies in ensuring short-term adjustments serve long-term national capability.

The domestic dimension is equally significant. Trade agreements affect employment, industrial competitiveness, energy costs and technological development. A transparent public conversation about these trade-offs is essential. Strategic autonomy ultimately rests not only on diplomatic agility but on domestic economic resilience and public confidence.

The recent trade pacts, therefore, mark neither surrender nor triumph. They represent the continuing evolution of India’s engagement with a complex international system where economic and strategic interests intersect more closely than before. India’s task is to navigate this environment with pragmatism: Expanding economic capability, diversifying partnerships, preserving decision-making flexibility, and avoiding binary alignments wherever possible. As global politics increasingly resembles a web of overlapping economic and strategic networks rather than rigid blocs, its success will depend on mastering interdependence. That balancing act, more than any single trade deal, will shape the country’s international trajectory in the years ahead.

These understandings thus underline a larger reality: Trade has become geopolitics by other means. Strategic autonomy today rests less on distance and more on capability; diversification of partners strengthens leverage; interdependence inevitably brings both opportunity and conditionality; and economic strength remains the true currency of sovereign choice. For India, this means that sustained opening up, regulatory reform, competitiveness in manufacturing, technology depth and energy resilience will matter far more than any single trade negotiation. How confidently India aligns economic openness with strategic independence will shape not just its diplomacy, but the trajectory of its rise in a world where prosperity and security increasingly travel together.

The writer is former Foreign Secretary

(The column Deshkaal will appear tomorrow )