NEW YORK, Sept. 29
A trade agreement between India and the United States could help strengthen a relationship that has faced strains over tariffs and other economic issues, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has said, arguing that both countries have an interest in resolving their differences and restoring greater stability to bilateral ties.
Speaking at the Asia Society in New York on Monday, Jaishankar said negotiations on a trade agreement were continuing and that reaching an understanding could have consequences extending beyond commerce.
“I think a trade agreement can contribute to bettering the relationship,” Jaishankar said, while stressing that trade was only one part of a much broader partnership between the two countries.
His remarks come after a difficult period in India-US economic relations, with disagreements over tariffs and trade measures complicating a partnership that has otherwise expanded considerably across defence, technology, energy and strategic cooperation.
Jaishankar said the relationship had developed significantly over the past quarter-century and should not be judged solely through the difficulties of the moment.
He pointed to areas including defence, energy and technology where cooperation has grown, arguing that the underlying relationship remains substantial despite recent friction.
India and the United States have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement, with both governments seeking to address outstanding market-access and tariff issues. The talks have acquired greater significance as trade disputes have increasingly intersected with wider strategic considerations.
The minister acknowledged that the relationship had gone through what he described as “ups and downs”, but said both sides continued to see value in the partnership.
Trade has become one of its more difficult components.
The Trump administration’s tariff policies have created new pressure on India, while Washington has also raised concerns about New Delhi’s economic policies and trade barriers. India, for its part, has sought to protect sectors it regards as economically or politically sensitive while seeking improved access for its exports.
Jaishankar did not suggest that all the differences had been resolved. His comments instead presented a trade agreement as one mechanism through which the two governments could improve the wider atmosphere surrounding the relationship.
The negotiations are taking place against a more complicated geopolitical backdrop.
India continues to maintain close ties with Russia, including substantial energy purchases, even as it deepens its strategic relationship with Washington. US policy towards Russia and Iran has created additional uncertainty for New Delhi, particularly where sanctions and tariffs could affect Indian trade and energy security.
Jaishankar recently raised India’s concerns over the US Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act during talks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in New York. The legislation gives the US president authority to impose tariffs on countries that continue to purchase Russian energy.
Those differences sit alongside areas where India and the United States have steadily expanded cooperation.
Defence ties have deepened through military exercises, procurement, technology initiatives and greater coordination in the Indo-Pacific. The two countries have also pursued cooperation in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, critical and emerging technologies, energy and resilient supply chains.
Jaishankar’s comments suggested that New Delhi views the relationship through this wider framework rather than allowing trade disagreements to define it.
He also placed India-US ties within a changing international system in which countries are increasingly seeking multiple partnerships rather than relying exclusively on traditional alignments.
India has long described its foreign policy in terms of strategic autonomy, maintaining relationships with countries whose interests do not always coincide. That approach has allowed New Delhi to expand cooperation with the United States while preserving longstanding ties with Russia and engaging China where its interests require it.
The United States has become increasingly important within that strategy.
Over the past two decades, successive governments in New Delhi and Washington have invested heavily in the bilateral relationship, beginning with the civil nuclear agreement and extending into defence, technology and Indo-Pacific cooperation.
Economic ties have grown alongside the strategic partnership, making trade disputes more consequential than they might have been when commercial engagement was smaller.
That interdependence also gives both sides an incentive to manage disagreements.
A bilateral trade agreement could provide greater predictability for businesses and address some of the tariff and market-access issues that have periodically strained relations. Its wider diplomatic value would depend on the scope of the agreement and whether it resolves the issues currently dividing the two governments.
Jaishankar did not announce a timetable for completing the negotiations or indicate that an agreement was imminent.
His comments instead reflected New Delhi’s view that resolving the trade dispute could remove an important source of friction and allow attention to return to areas where Indian and American interests overlap.
The minister also cautioned against reducing the relationship to individual disagreements or episodes of tension. The broader trajectory, he argued, remained one of substantial expansion over several decades.
That assessment does not eliminate the issues currently facing the two countries. Trade, tariffs, Russian energy purchases and US sanctions policy remain difficult subjects, and their eventual resolution will depend on negotiations rather than the broader strategic logic of the partnership.
But Jaishankar’s message in New York was that those differences exist within a relationship whose foundations are considerably wider.
A trade agreement, in that context, would not by itself define India-US relations. It could, however, remove one of their most immediate sources of friction and help create a more stable basis for cooperation in the areas where the two countries have spent years building closer ties.
