India-US Interim Trade Pact Faces Pushback Over Russian Oil Clause

The recent interim trade pact between India and the United States was meant to be a big milestone in their economic relationship, but things are getting complicated very quickly. The agreement signed on February 6 was expected to act like a stepping stone toward a larger free trade deal. Many business groups welcomed it at first, hoping it would reduce tariffs and make exports smoother. But now critics are raising serious concerns, especially regarding Russian oil imports and India’s energy independence.

One of the biggest issues is the reported link between tariff benefits and India reducing its crude oil purchases from Russia. The understanding, according to discussions around the deal, is that lower tariffs on Indian goods may depend on cutting back Russian oil imports. This has created discomfort because Russian crude has been an important part of India’s energy supply in recent years. Some experts are questioning whether India has limited its strategic flexibility too much under this arrangement.

Meanwhile, protests have erupted in several states including Bihar, Haryana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Farmers believe the deal could open doors for more American agricultural products, which may affect domestic prices and hurt local producers. Many demonstrators claim that rural stakeholders were not properly consulted before moving forward with such a significant agreement. Opposition leaders and farmer unions have also voiced concerns, demanding safeguards to protect Indian agriculture and small businesses.

Trade Minister Piyush Goyal has clarified that a large percentage of Indian farm products were kept out of the proposed framework and insisted that sectors like textiles and manufacturing would benefit. Still, critics argue that the broader implications of the pact may affect India’s long term strategic autonomy.

Investors are cautiously optimistic, seeing potential trade growth if tariff reductions are implemented smoothly. However, the deal has clearly sparked deeper debates about sovereignty, energy security and fairness. What was meant to be a smooth diplomatic win now feels like a balancing act between economic opportunity and national interest.