The political temperature in the national capital rose sharply after the Congress party launched a strong attack on the Centre over the proposed Indo-U.S. trade agreement, calling it a “No deal but U.S. steal.” Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh alleged that the agreement is heavily tilted in favour of the United States and claimed that India has conceded more than it has gained.

Addressing the media and posting detailed remarks, Mr. Ramesh said that “whatever spin that the Prime Minister and his lie-brigade may give, the hard reality is that the U.S. has extracted more from India than it has conceded.” The remark has triggered a fresh round of political debate over the nature, scope and impact of India’s growing trade ties with Washington.

The government, however, dismissed the criticism and maintained that negotiations are still evolving and that India’s national interest remains fully protected.

Congress’s Core Allegation

At the heart of the Congress’s criticism is the claim that the trade understanding lacks balance. According to Mr. Ramesh, India has offered significant concessions on tariffs and market access without securing equivalent benefits for Indian exporters.

He argued that such an arrangement risks turning India into a larger market for American goods while failing to expand opportunities for Indian farmers, manufacturers and service providers.

The Congress party’s messaging has centred around three key points:

1. India has lowered its guard on imports.

2. The U.S. has not provided adequate reciprocal access.

3. Domestic sectors may face serious economic pressure.

By branding the agreement as “No deal but U.S. steal,” the party has attempted to frame the debate in stark political terms.

Impact on Farmers

A major focus of the Opposition’s argument is the potential impact on Indian agriculture.

Congress leaders have raised concerns that allowing greater access to American agricultural products — many of which benefit from U.S. government subsidies — could hurt Indian farmers.

India’s agriculture sector supports millions of families. Even small shifts in price dynamics can significantly impact farm incomes. The fear expressed by the Opposition is that cheaper imports may depress domestic prices.

Sectors that have been mentioned in the debate include:

• Dairy products

• Pulses and grains

• Oilseeds

• Processed food items

Congress leaders have said that farmers are already struggling with rising input costs, climate uncertainty and price fluctuations. Additional pressure from foreign competition could worsen the situation.

They have demanded full transparency regarding tariff concessions in agriculture.

MSMEs and Manufacturing Concerns

Beyond farming, Congress has warned that the deal may undermine Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).

MSMEs form the backbone of India’s industrial ecosystem. These enterprises generate employment at scale and contribute significantly to GDP.

According to critics, if American products — especially in sectors like electronics, medical devices and processed goods — enter India at reduced tariffs, domestic manufacturers may find it difficult to compete.

Congress leaders argue that this scenario contradicts the spirit of Make in India, which was launched to strengthen domestic production and reduce import dependence.

They have questioned how a government that promotes self-reliance can simultaneously allow what they describe as an uneven trade arrangement.

Government’s Position

The Centre has rejected allegations of imbalance. Officials have stated that the trade discussions aim to deepen economic cooperation while ensuring fairness.

Government representatives have emphasised:

• Negotiations are not finalised.

• Safeguard mechanisms are being discussed.

• Reciprocity remains a guiding principle.

They argue that improved trade ties with the United States can unlock new export markets for Indian products, including pharmaceuticals, textiles, engineering goods and IT services.

The government has also pointed out that India’s global economic strategy involves engaging major economies to boost growth and attract investment.

Political Context of the Debate

The Congress attack comes at a time when economic issues are politically sensitive. Trade agreements often become flashpoints because they directly affect livelihoods.

Opposition parties frequently use such debates to question the government’s economic management.

By using a sharp slogan like “No deal but U.S. steal,” Congress has attempted to create a narrative that the Centre is compromising national interest.

The ruling party, in turn, accuses the Opposition of politicising foreign policy matters and spreading fear without examining the full details.

Historical Trade Tensions

India and the United States have had a complex trade relationship over the years.

There have been disagreements on issues such as:

• Tariffs on steel and aluminium

• Market access for dairy and agricultural products

• Intellectual property rights

• Data localisation policies

Despite these disputes, bilateral trade has steadily grown. The United States remains one of India’s largest trading partners.

Supporters of deeper engagement argue that cooperation with the U.S. strengthens India’s position in global supply chains.

Critics, however, insist that strategic partnerships must not come at the cost of domestic economic stability.

Make in India and Self-Reliance

The debate has once again brought focus to the Make in India initiative and the broader concept of Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Congress leaders argue that trade policy must align with these objectives. They say reducing tariffs without strengthening domestic competitiveness can weaken long-term industrial growth.

The Centre counters that global integration and self-reliance are not mutually exclusive. According to officials, participation in global trade networks can enhance competitiveness.

The question remains whether the proposed agreement achieves that balance.

Economic Analysis: Gains vs Risks

Trade agreements typically involve trade-offs. Lower tariffs may reduce prices for consumers but can increase competition for domestic producers.

Potential gains from the Indo-U.S. agreement may include:

• Greater export opportunities

• Increased foreign investment

• Access to advanced technology

• Strengthened geopolitical partnership

However, potential risks include:

• Rising imports

• Pressure on local industries

• Widening trade deficits

• Political backlash

Experts suggest that the final impact will depend on the details of implementation.

Farmers’ and Industry Reactions

Farmers’ organisations have expressed cautious concern. Some have demanded consultations before finalisation.

Industry reactions appear mixed. Large exporters see opportunities in expanded U.S. market access. Smaller manufacturers remain wary of import competition.

The diversity of opinion reflects the complexity of trade negotiations.

Congress’s Broader Argument

Jairam Ramesh’s criticism is not limited to economic numbers. He has framed the issue as one of accountability and transparency.

He has questioned whether Parliament has been adequately informed about concessions being discussed.

The Congress has demanded:

• Detailed disclosure of tariff commitments

• Clarification on safeguard clauses

• Assurance of protection for sensitive sectors

By raising these demands, the party aims to position itself as defending national interest.

Strategic Considerations

India’s relationship with the United States extends beyond trade. It includes defence cooperation, technology partnerships and geopolitical alignment.

Some analysts argue that economic concessions may sometimes be part of broader strategic calculations.

However, critics insist that strategic alignment should not translate into economic imbalance.

Balancing strategic partnerships with domestic economic priorities remains a central challenge.

Public Perception and Political Messaging

The slogan “No deal but U.S. steal” is clearly designed for political impact. Such messaging simplifies complex economic negotiations into sharp narratives.

Whether this framing resonates with the public will depend on how the government communicates the benefits of the agreement.

If the deal leads to visible economic gains, criticism may fade. If negative effects are felt, the Opposition’s narrative may gain traction.

Parliamentary Scrutiny Ahead

The issue is expected to be debated further in Parliament. Opposition MPs may seek detailed explanations from the Commerce Ministry.

Parliamentary scrutiny plays a crucial role in democratic oversight of trade agreements.

It ensures that economic decisions undergo political debate before implementation.

The Road Ahead

As negotiations continue, several key questions remain:

• Will India secure meaningful export access?

• Are farmers adequately protected?

• Will MSMEs receive support to compete globally?

• Does the agreement strengthen Make in India?

The answers will determine whether the criticism proves justified.

Join our Telegram Channel for Latest News and Regular Updates.

Start your Mutual Fund Journey  by Opening Free Account in Asset Plus.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.