The India-UK FTA was not born out of a rushed timeline or coercive economic pressure, but out of patient diplomacy and mutual respect for each other’s red lines. The negotiations stretched over three years, having begun in 2022 and concluded in May 2025. The road was not smooth. Former British PM Boris Johnson ambitiously declared that the agreement would be completed by Diwali 2022. That deadline came and went. Fourteen rounds of negotiations followed, each grappling with complex issues: the UK’s demand for tariff cuts on liquor, and India’s push for liberal visa regimes and social security protection for its skilled professionals.
Also Read: India, UK to sign free trade deal during PM Modi’s visit
Yet, rather than forcing a suboptimal compromise, both sides chose to take the time needed to hammer out a balanced and enduring agreement. It was only after leadership changes — Modi’s re-election in India and Keir Starmer’s victory in the UK — that talks found fresh political will and resumed momentum in January 2025. Just four months later, a deal was reached. That timeline is instructive.
The trouble with Trump’s tariff-driven strategy
In contrast, the Trump administration’s approach to trade negotiations has leaned heavily on tariff threats and artificial deadlines. Talks between India and the US have gone through five rounds already, with a sixth round on the horizon in New Delhi. The first self-imposed deadline of July 9 has already lapsed. The second, August 1, is also likely to pass without a deal.
While Trump refrained from sending a tariff notification letter to India (as he did to 20 other countries), the looming possibility of higher tariffs hangs in the air. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s recent comments that “quality matters more than timing” seem like a rare voice of caution within a strategy otherwise driven by urgency and coercion. But his admission that returning to tariff threats might be used as leverage further underscores how the US views trade not as a dialogue, but as a deal to be bagged swiftly. Trade negotiations, especially between large and diverse economies like India, the UK and the US, involve complicated policy, legal, and political considerations. India is a democratic country with deeply rooted economic priorities and political sensitivities. The issues on the table — ranging from tariff structures to labour mobility and social security entitlements — affect millions of stakeholders. Such complexity cannot be resolved by setting short-term deadlines or threatening economic penalties.The India-UK deal demonstrates a more collaborative and strategic approach. Neither country was willing to compromise on its core demands, but both showed genuine political will to arrive at common ground. The result is likely to be a more durable and respected agreement, rather than one constantly under threat of renegotiation or collapse.
Also Read: Trump deals bring some clarity for world’s manufacturing base
What Trump should learn
The Trump administration must recognize that credible, long-term trade partnerships are not built on fear, but on trust and respect. By turning up the heat with tariff threats, the US risks alienating partners like India, who value sovereignty and policy independence. Instead, the US could take a cue from the UK’s patience and diplomatic persistence.
Moreover, India’s posture in these talks signals it is willing to wait rather than cave under pressure. That should give US negotiators pause. A rushed deal, achieved by threats or arbitrary deadlines, may lead to short-term political optics but will lack the strategic depth and sustainability that a deal like the India-UK FTA is likely to enjoy.
In the arena of international trade, patience is not a weakness; it’s a strategy. The India-UK FTA showcases that deals which reflect both parties’ interests, developed over time through robust negotiation, are far more likely to be successful. The Trump administration would do well to learn from this model. Forcing the pace with tariff threats may backfire, especially when dealing with democracies like India that are willing to wait for the right deal rather than surrender under pressure. If Washington genuinely seeks a “win-win” agreement, it must be willing to play the long game just as the UK did.
