Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s February 2025 visit to the United States has sparked intense debate, with critics arguing that the slew of agreements signed during the trip risks compromising India’s strategic autonomy and economic independence. While the visit was framed as a milestone for bilateral cooperation, a closer examination reveals troubling concessions that align India’s policies disproportionately with U.S. interests. Here’s a critical breakdown of the key issues:
1. Defence Deals: Dependency on U.S. Military Hardware
The U.S. announced plans to supply India with F-35 stealth fighter jets, marking a shift from India’s historical reliance on Russian defence equipment. While this enhances India’s military capabilities, it also deepens dependency on U.S. technology, which often comes with stringent end-use monitoring agreements and restrictions on third-party collaborations. The proposed co-production of Javelin missiles and Stryker combat vehicles further embed U.S. defence corporations into India’s military-industrial complex, potentially side-lining domestic initiatives like the AtmaNirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) campaign.
The U.S.-India COMPACT initiative, aimed at accelerating defence industrial cooperation, includes clauses for “streamlining” U.S. arms transfer regulations. Critics argue this could erode India’s agency in customizing defence systems to suit its regional security needs, such as countering China or Pakistan.
2. Trade and Tariffs: Concessions to U.S. Demands
The $500 billion bilateral trade target by 2030 (“Mission 500”) comes with strings attached. India has already reduced tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, bourbon, and medical devices, while the U.S. reciprocated with minor concessions like easing mango exports. However, Trump’s insistence on reciprocal tariffs—matching India’s 17% average tariff rate—threatens to destabilize India’s economy, particularly in sectors like electronics and automobiles where U.S. firms dominate.
The proposed Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA), to be negotiated by 2025, risks prioritizing U.S. corporate interests. For instance, India’s decision to amend nuclear liability laws to accommodate U.S.-designed reactors (under the 123 Civil Nuclear Agreement) effectively shields American companies like Westinghouse from accountability in case of accidents, undermining public safety concerns.
3. Energy and Critical Minerals: Fuelling U.S. Priorities
India’s commitment to purchase $25 billion in U.S. energy exports, including liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil, aligns with Trump’s agenda to boost American energy dominance. While this may temporarily ease India’s trade deficit, it locks the country into long-term contracts that could prove costly amid volatile global markets.
Similarly, the TRUST initiative and collaborations on critical minerals position India as a junior partner in securing supply chains for semiconductors and rare earths. The U.S.-driven Mineral Security Partnership prioritizes Western access to Indian resources, raising concerns about exploitation without commensurate technology transfers.
4. Technology and Surveillance: Compromising Data Sovereignty
The ASIA (Autonomous Systems Industry Alliance) initiative, involving partnerships like Anduril Industries and Mahindra Group, grants U.S. firms access to India’s defence and AI sectors. Such collaborations risk embedding U.S.-controlled surveillance technologies, potentially compromising national security.
Elon Musk’s push for Starlink’s entry into India—despite regulatory hurdles and opposition from domestic telecom giants like Reliance Jio—highlights how U.S. corporations may bypass local laws under the guise of “innovation.” Modi’s eagerness to accommodate Musk’s demands, including Tesla’s potential market entry, suggests a willingness to prioritize foreign investors over homegrown industries.
5. Geopolitical Alignment: Undermining Strategic Autonomy
Modi’s endorsement of Trump’s mediation offer in the India-China border dispute and his muted response to reciprocal tariffs signal a departure from India’s traditional non-aligned stance. By aligning closely with U.S. objectives in the Indo-Pacific through the Quad alliance, India risks antagonizing China and particularly, Russia—key partners in forums like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Moreover, the extradition of 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana, while a diplomatic win, underscores India’s reliance on U.S. legal frameworks to address terrorism, rather than building independent multilateral mechanisms. However, this is the only positive from this tour of USA.
The “MAGA–MIGA” Rhetoric: Branding or Betrayal?
In a series of press statements and social media posts, Modi even adopted a branding strategy that echoed Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan—coining it “Make India Great Again” (MIGA) and asserting that “MAGA plus MIGA equals MEGA partnership for prosperity.” While such rhetoric might be intended to emphasize unity and mutual benefit, detractors see it as a veneer covering a far more troubling reality: that in order to secure American investment and technology transfers, India is willing to accept compromises that could erode its long-standing strategic independence.
A One-Sided “Partnership”?
While the Modi-Trump bonhomie projects a vision of a “MEGA partnership,” the fine print of the agreements reveals a lopsided dynamic. From defence dependency to trade concessions and compromised regulatory sovereignty, India appears to be trading short-term gains for long-term vulnerabilities. The absence of robust safeguards in nuclear deals, the erosion of tariff autonomy, and the unchecked influence of U.S. corporations suggest that Modi’s administration has prioritized geopolitical optics over equitable reciprocity.
As former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan cautioned, the $500 billion trade goal hinges on India becoming a “client state” for U.S. energy and arms—a far cry from the vision of a “Viksit Bharat” (Developed India). For a nation aspiring to global leadership, this visit may be remembered not as a triumph, but as a cautionary tale of compromised sovereignty.
