X: @vivekbhavsar
New Delhi: As Parliament continues to witness celebration from the treasury benches over the India–US trade agreement, the core issue remains unresolved: despite official claims and endorsements, the actual text of the agreement is still not in the public domain. The government has acknowledged the existence of a trade agreement, senior officials have spoken about the time it took to negotiate it, and ministries have praised the leadership involved—but Parliament has not yet been shown what India has formally agreed to.
US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor, speaking to the media earlier, confirmed that the negotiations took nearly four months to conclude, citing the complexity of issues and India’s domestic considerations. He also pointed out that trade negotiations often take years, referring to the 19-year period it took for India and the European Union to finalise their agreement. His statement makes it clear that what has been announced is not a casual understanding, but the outcome of prolonged and structured negotiations.
Soon after, the Department of Commerce, Government of India, publicly welcomed the India–US Trade Agreement through a series of posts on X, praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump. The ministry described the agreement as a reflection of a holistic economic partnership, focused on innovation, job creation, resilient supply chains and technology collaboration, asserting that it strengthens trade ties and creates new opportunities for businesses in both countries.
However, even as these endorsements were issued, no official document, treaty text, annexure or tariff schedule has been placed before Parliament or released publicly. What exists in the public sphere are broad descriptions of intent and partnership, not the precise terms that define who gains, who concedes, and on what conditions.
The controversy deepened after President Trump publicly claimed that India had agreed to stop purchasing crude oil from Russia and instead buy oil from the United States and Venezuela. These remarks have not been confirmed by the Indian government through any formal statement or policy notification. Significantly, Russia has reacted with caution rather than confrontation. The Kremlin has stated that it has received no official communication from India regarding any decision to halt Russian oil imports. Russian officials reiterated that India remains a strategically important partner and said they would “watch and see” how the situation develops.
Also Read: Yavatmal: When a Story Travelled Faster Than the Reporter
Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak told reporters that Moscow had seen only public statements on the issue and emphasised that demand for Russian energy continues to remain strong. This reaction underscores a critical point: even India’s key international partners appear to be relying on media statements, not formal diplomatic communication, to understand what India’s position actually is.
Within India, senior opposition leaders, including Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, have asked a straightforward constitutional question. If a trade agreement has indeed been concluded after months of negotiation, why has its text not been shared with Parliament? Trade agreements are not symbolic announcements. They involve binding commitments on tariffs, procurement, market access and strategic choices, particularly in sensitive areas such as agriculture, MSMEs and energy security.
If the agreement entails tariff reductions or zero-duty access for American goods, it must be backed by formal notifications from the Commerce Ministry and customs authorities. If it involves changes in oil procurement strategy, it must involve decisions at the level of the Petroleum Ministry, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Cabinet. As of now, none of these documents have been made public.
The government’s public communication suggests that a deal exists and that it is beneficial. At the same time, the absence of disclosed documents makes it impossible for Parliament, economists or citizens to independently assess its impact. Supporters argue that Indian exporters will benefit from lower US tariffs. Critics fear that opening Indian markets could hurt farmers and small manufacturers. Without access to the agreement, both claims remain speculative.
Transparency is not hostility. In a parliamentary democracy, international trade agreements are public instruments, not confidential understandings. They are entered into in the name of the people of India and must be open to scrutiny by their elected representatives. Until the government places the full text of the India–US trade agreement before Parliament, the celebration rests on official assurances rather than verifiable facts, and the most basic question remains unanswered: what exactly has India agreed to, and at what cost?
