India EU FTA: A Trade Agreement That Is Really About Power and Memory

On 27 January, when India and the European Union announced a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), it was immediately clear that this was much more than a trade deal. Amandeep Midha calls it a geopolitical act. The significance of this agreement lies in the fact that it was clinched after nearly two decades of intense negotiations between two sides representing nearly two billion people. We invite you to read this article to fully appreciate the nuances of this landmark accord. 

India EU FTA: A Trade Agreement That Is Really About Power and Memory

Amandeep Midha

India has developed a recent habit of mistaking announcements for outcomes. Trade agreements, in particular, are too often reduced to celebratory arithmetic, tariff lines cut, sectors opened, exports projected. The India–European Union Free Trade Agreement deserves a different reading. At its core, this is not merely a trade agreement. It is a geopolitical act. When the world’s second-largest economy by population and purchasing power deliberately anchors itself to the world’s fourth-largest economic bloc, the intent is not commercial efficiency alone. It is about alignment, leverage, and long-term positioning in a world where power is once again being contested openly. The timing is not incidental. Nor is the partner.

The Collapse of Old Assumptions

The post–Cold War faith that trade would dissolve strategic rivalry has quietly died. Energy dependence became a weapon in Europe’s confrontation with Russia. Manufacturing dependence has become a strategic vulnerability in its relationship with China.

Europe’s turn towards India must be read against this background. Diversification is no longer a matter of cost optimisation; it is a matter of strategic survival. India, too, has learned that autonomy in the modern world does not mean distance from markets. It means embedding oneself deeply enough in multiple systems that no single power can coerce or isolate. The FTA is thus not a gesture of openness. It is a mutual hedge.

Numbers as Signals, not Trophies

Much attention has been lavished on figures: preferential access for nearly all Indian exports to Europe, trade flows touching $75 billion, and a combined economic footprint approaching a quarter of global GDP.

Their importance lies not in scale alone, but in what they communicate. They tell multinational firms that India is no longer an auxiliary option, it is becoming indispensable in their chase of high GDP growth economies. They tell financial markets that Europe is prepared to commit institutional capital to India’s rise. And they tell Beijing, without proclamation, that Europe’s economic future will not be singularly dependent. In geopolitics, such signals matter more than declarations.

Employment, stability, and the domestic base of power

The sectors that stand to gain the most: textiles, leather, marine products, gems and jewellery, employ millions and sit close to India’s social and political fault lines.

Correcting the tariff asymmetries that disadvantaged Indian producers vis-à-vis Bangladesh or Vietnam is not merely an economic adjustment. It strengthens employment-intensive growth and, by extension, domestic stability.

No country exercises influence abroad while neglecting cohesion at home. Trade policy, at this level, becomes an instrument of internal consolidation.

People as infrastructure

The provisions enabling Indian professionals to operate across large swathes of the European economy, accompanied by social security portability, appear procedural. They are not. They normalise Indian human capital within Europe’s knowledge systems. Over time, this creates professional networks, cultural familiarity, and informal influence that no diplomatic communiqué can replicate. Even the recognition of Indian traditional medicine should be seen through this prism. Soft power becomes durable only when it is embedded in law.

The Discipline of Refusal

Equally revealing is what India chose not to place on the table. Dairy and key agricultural sectors were kept outside the agreement. This was not the defensiveness of a reluctant reformer. It was the restraint of a state conscious of political economy. No serious government destabilises vulnerable rural sectors to satisfy abstract notions of openness. Power, after all, is sustained as much by what a country refuses as by what it concedes.

Managed openness and strategic patience

The automobile provisions reflect a similar calculus. European manufacturers receive limited access at the upper end of the Indian market. Indian firms, in return, secure pathways into Europe. This is not doctrinaire free trade. It is calibrated exposure: an approach increasingly favoured by states that have learned from both liberal excess and protectionist retreat.

The political after-effects of economic entanglement 

Deep economic interdependence alters diplomatic geometry. When supply chains, labour flows, and capital are intertwined, political positions become negotiable in ways they were not before. It is in this context that several Indian aspirations, long discussed in isolation, acquire renewed plausibility.

The first is “Make in India” not as a slogan, but as a geopolitical proposition. Preferential access to Europe gives Indian manufacturing an incentive structure that aligns domestic production with global demand. Over time, this strengthens India’s case not merely as a market, but as a manufacturing partner embedded in trusted supply chains.

Second is India’s quest for greater geopolitical backing on the global stage, particularly its long-standing claim to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Such reform will not emerge from moral argument alone. It requires sustained alignment with influential blocs. A Europe economically invested in India is a Europe more inclined to treat India’s claim as a structural necessity rather than a diplomatic courtesy.

Third are unresolved questions of decolonisation that continue to surface in international forums, including India’s position on the Chagos Islands. Trade agreements do not decide such matters, but they shape the environment in which support is mobilised. Economic partnership lowers the political cost of principled backing.

There is also the quieter, symbolic domain of cultural restitution. The gradual return of Indian artefacts from European museums, often framed as moral gestures, tends to follow shifts in power and relevance. History is rarely returned to those who lack leverage.

None of these outcomes are automatic. But all become conceivable when economic alignment matures into strategic trust. Recognition, in international affairs, follows relevance.

Why this Agreement will be Remembered

The India–EU FTA should be recalled not for the concessions it contains, but for the posture it reflects. It marks a shift from transactional bargaining to structural alignment. Trade, here, is merely the instrument. Power, and the memory of how it is accumulated is the outcome.

India has signalled that it does not seek applause. It seeks positioning. That is why this agreement deserves attention; and why it will be referred to long after the tariff tables are forgotten.

*******

Amandeep Midha is a technologist, writer, and global speaker with over two decades of experience in digital platforms building, data streaming, and digital transformation. He has contributed thought leadership to Forbes, World Economic Forum, Horasis, and CSR Times, and actively engages in technology policy-making discussions. Based in Copenhagen, Amandeep blends deep technical expertise with a passion for social impact and storytelling.

Banner image is a picture of a graphic published in the Indian Express.