US Trade Advisor Claims India ‘Desperate’ for Access to American Markets Amid Rising Tariff Tensions

New Delhi / Washington – The trade relationship between India and the United States has entered a critical phase, as tensions escalate over recent tariff impositions. US White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro has sharply criticised India’s trade stance, alleging that New Delhi is “desperately” seeking access to American markets even while resisting concessions demanded by Washington. The confrontation underscores both the high stakes of bilateral trade and the challenge of reconciling economic objectives with broader geopolitical imperatives.

The immediate backdrop is the US administration’s enforcement of punitive tariffs on Indian imports—first a 25% base duty, followed by an additional 25% penalty linked to India’s ongoing purchase of Russian oil. These combined tariffs, reaching ~50%, have hit Indian exports hard and triggered diplomatic friction.

According to Navarro, India has long sought access to the US market on terms that Washington considers unfair, especially given India’s high tariff regime and what the US perceives as non-tariff barriers. He argues that India’s refusal to adjust certain domestic policies—particularly its energy sourcing from Russia—undermines the US’s strategic and trade policy goals. “India is coming to the table … they want market access,” he told media in a recent interview, also accusing the Indian refining sector of benefiting from discounted Russian oil to gain unfair competitive advantage.

India, in turn, has defended its policy decisions. New Delhi stresses that its import of Russian oil is driven by energy security concerns amid global supply disruptions, and that any trade agreement must preserve its regulatory autonomy and protect key sectors such as agriculture and dairy. Analysts note that India is under pressure from falling exports: in August, merchandise exports to the US dropped substantially compared to July, following the implementation of the higher tariffs.

The two sides are now intensifying negotiations. A US trade delegation led by Brendan Lynch is in New Delhi to resume talks, with Indian officials urging that any bilateral trade agreement (BTA) clearly address tariff parity, non-tariff barriers, and relief for export-oriented industries hurt by steep duties. Washington is reportedly insisting on India opening up more in areas such as agriculture, dairy, and reducing trade-restrictive regulations.

Observers caution, however, that a breakthrough may be hard to achieve in the short term. Key political red lines in India—such as protecting farmer income, maintaining domestic regulatory control, and preserving energy policy choices—limit flexibility. On the US side, tariff penalties tied to legal and political mandates, including those concerning relations with Russia, make rollback of punitive measures challenging.

Economically, while India hopes that tax reforms, state-led support, and diversified export markets will cushion the blow, the impact of the tariffs is already being felt: in addition to reduced shipments, several sectors—textiles, engineering goods, seafood, gems and jewellery—report order cancellations, reduced demand, and costs rising out of supply-chain disruptions.

Geopolitically, the dispute comes at a time when global alliances are shifting. The US views India as a key partner in balancing China, while India is increasingly asserting strategic autonomy—maintaining relationships with both Western countries and Russia. These competing pressures mean that trade is not merely economic, but deeply entwined with foreign policy, energy security, and global strategic signaling.

As talks continue in New Delhi and Washington, the roadmap ahead will likely need to balance three critical priorities:

• Relief for Indian exporters suffering immediate harm from high US tariffs.
• Preservation of India’s core policy imperatives—energy, agriculture, regulatory sovereignty, and protection of domestic industries.
• US insistence on what it perceives as fair trade practices, including reduced non-tariff barriers, greater market access, and alignment with its broader foreign policy objectives.

If neither side shifts sufficiently, the risk is that trade relations may deteriorate further—hurting businesses, workers, and political stability on both sides. But if a mutually acceptable agreement can be reached, there is significant upside: expanded bilateral trade, reduced economic frictions, and enhanced diplomatic cooperation in a volatile international environment.