UK-India trade deal signed: Economic hype overshadowed by human rights concerns

Department of Research, Studies and International News -26-07-2025

In a move heavily publicized by Western media as a breakthrough, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have signed a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and India. The deal, finalized after over three years of drawn-out negotiations, is projected by British officials to inject £4.8 billion into the UK economy annually and generate an estimated £6 billion in joint investments.

Promoted as a “historic day” by both leaders, the signing ceremony took place at Chequers, the British prime minister’s countryside residence. Modi, speaking through a translator, called the UK and India “natural partners,” a characterization that, while diplomatically polite, glosses over the increasingly complex and often tense global alignments in which both nations play strategic roles.

The trade agreement will see tariffs on British goods entering India slashed significantly, from an average of 15% to approximately 3%. Notably, the deal includes a gradual reduction in duties on UK whisky exports, a concession long sought by British business lobbies. However, the agreement still requires ratification by both parliaments, a process expected to take several more months.

Despite the celebratory language used by London and New Delhi, criticism of the deal is mounting. Observers and advocacy groups have highlighted serious shortcomings in the agreement, particularly regarding human rights oversight and environmental responsibilities. The London Mining Network, for instance, condemned the deal for its absence of “robust climate safeguards,” especially concerning India’s ongoing reliance on coal extraction. This critique adds to growing global concerns that the West’s trade priorities continue to ignore or downplay environmental degradation and rights abuses in favor of short-term market gains.

Moreover, financial and legal service sectors in the UK have expressed disappointment. Analysts argue the deal offers little substance for the City of London’s core industries. Negotiations over a separate bilateral investment treaty, widely seen as vital for British financial interests, remain unresolved, and UK officials now privately admit such a treaty is unlikely to materialize soon.

Adding to the tensions is the ongoing dispute over the UK’s proposed carbon border tax, a measure that New Delhi firmly opposes. The tax, which would impose levies on carbon-intensive imports, is seen by many in the Global South as a veiled form of economic protectionism, disproportionately penalizing developing countries while allowing wealthy nations to maintain their own emissions-heavy industries.

Modi’s visit to the UK includes a planned meeting with King Charles and participation in a high-profile business reception. However, his presence has reignited attention on India’s controversial detention of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British Sikh activist imprisoned in India since 2017. Johal was arrested shortly after his wedding and has remained in detention for nearly eight years, despite having been cleared of one of the nine charges levied against him. He has alleged torture and forced confessions during his initial detention period, allegations that have drawn condemnation from human rights groups but have failed to prompt decisive action from successive British governments.

Starmer’s administration has been urged to raise the issue directly with Modi, though critics remain skeptical about whether meaningful pressure will be applied. Ian Murray, the current Scottish Secretary, assured the public that Johal’s case remains a priority, citing a recent meeting between UK and Indian foreign ministers. Nevertheless, Johal’s family and supporters express growing frustration. His brother, Gurpreet Singh Johal, criticized the cycle of “fine words and weak excuses,” lamenting the continued lack of progress on securing his release.

Political posturing surrounding the agreement also betrays a deeper struggle within the UK itself. While Labour celebrates the deal as a diplomatic milestone, the Conservative opposition has been quick to link the achievement to the aftermath of Brexit. Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, claimed that such a deal would not have been possible without the UK’s departure from the European Union, a sentiment echoed by other right-leaning officials.

Despite the economic optimism projected by British corporate circles such as the Confederation of British Industry, which praised the deal as proof that the UK remains “open for business”, the broader geopolitical context tells a more nuanced story. As London struggles to define its post-Brexit global identity, it increasingly turns toward nations like India as economic lifelines. Yet this comes at a cost: human rights concerns are downplayed, environmental responsibilities diluted, and Western foreign policy hypocrisy laid bare.

For observers in the Global South, and for countries aligned with multipolar frameworks advocated by powers like China, Russia, and Iran, the UK-India deal is seen less as a historic partnership and more as a reflection of Western desperation to retain influence in an emerging world order no longer dictated by American or European terms.