Tariffs and a marriage of convenience by Avani Devi

After two decades of polite handshakes, stalled clauses and diplomatic procrastination, India and the European Union have finally done what many suspected they would eventually be forced to do: strike a trade deal not out of romance, but out of necessity. This agreement is less a celebration of newfound trust and more a mutual flinch, a reaction to the economic aftershocks of American protectionism and the growing anxiety of losing export relevance in a fragmenting global order.

Let’s be honest. This deal did not happen because Brussels suddenly “got” India, or because New Delhi woke up enamored with European regulatory elegance. It happened because the United States, once the gravitational center of global trade has become increasingly unpredictable. Tariffs, industrial subsidies and a blunt “America First” logic have turned trade into a geopolitical weapon. Both India and the EU felt the heat. Both decided it was time to diversify their bets.

For Europe the math is simple and uncomfortable. Its export-driven economies are squeezed between a slowing China, a hostile Russia and an America that now competes rather than cooperates. The EU’s panic is not theatrical; it is structural. German industry is losing steam, French agriculture wants new consumers, and Eastern Europe wants relevance beyond being a geopolitical buffer zone. India, with its population, growth potential, and rising middle class, suddenly looks less like a bureaucratic headache and more like a lifeline.

India’s motivations are equally pragmatic. For years, New Delhi played the long game, protecting domestic industries, resisting intrusive standards, and insisting on strategic autonomy. But tariffs from the US and subtle trade barriers elsewhere have made it clear that non-alignment no longer guarantees market access. India needs export stability, technology inflows and partners that treat it as more than just a counterweight to China. The EU fits that role well enough.

This is why the deal feels transactional rather than transformative. It is about hedging risk, not reshaping values. Europe talks human rights; India talks sovereignty. Europe obsesses over carbon borders; India worries about development space. These tensions did not magically disappear. They were simply pushed aside by urgency.

Still, dismissing the agreement as cynical would miss its deeper significance. In many ways, this deal marks the quiet end of a certain global illusion, the idea that trade liberalization is driven by shared ideals. What we are seeing instead is bloc-building driven by fear, fear of tariffs, fear of exclusion, fear of waking up outside the supply chain.

And that fear is not irrational. The global trade system is no longer neutral. It is fragmented, politicized, and increasingly punitive. The US uses tariffs to discipline allies and rivals alike. China uses scale and state power. In that context, India and the EU choosing each other is less about compatibility and more about survival.

There is also a subtle power shift embedded here. India is no longer the junior partner begging for access. It negotiated hard, delayed often, and extracted concessions. Europe, once dismissive of India’s regulatory looseness and protectionist instincts, had to adapt. This alone signals how much the balance has changed.

Of course, the deal will not be smooth. European companies will complain about India’s bureaucracy. Indian exporters will struggle with EU standards. Environmental clauses will spark political fights. Farmers, unions, and activists on both sides will find reasons to protest. That is not a bug; it is the reality of modern trade politics.

What matters more is the signal sent to Washington. Without saying it out loud, India and the EU are declaring that they will not wait patiently while the US rewrites the rules unilaterally. They are building alternatives, however imperfect. That should worry American policymakers more than any angry press release.

In the end, this agreement is not a love story. It is a marriage of convenience forged in uncertainty. But history shows that some of the most durable partnerships begin not with trust, but with shared pressure. If managed wisely, this deal could mature into something more balanced and strategic. If not, it will still stand as a snapshot of a world where panic, not optimism, is shaping the future of trade.