
(Web Desk): India’s recent notification to the World Trade Organization (WTO), signaling its intent to suspend trade concessions on select US-origin goods, appears less about dispute resolution and more about geopolitical gamesmanship.
The move follows the United States’ imposition of 25% safeguard tariffs on Indian automobile parts, a decision India now seeks to counter with retaliatory duties—potentially impacting $723 million worth of US goods annually.
Read More: Why are European nations suddenly pulling their gold back from the US?
But beneath the surface, India’s use of Article 12.5 of the WTO’s Safeguards Agreement may be more symbolic than strategic. Experts say India isn’t engaging the WTO in good faith to resolve trade frictions. Instead, it’s deploying multilateral institutions as pressure points while avoiding domestic reforms that could address long-standing US grievances on agriculture subsidies, digital services taxes, and market access.
“This signals a double game,” said a trade analyst familiar with the matter. “On one hand, India is negotiating a bilateral trade deal with the US; on the other, it s using the WTO to strike a confrontational tone when convenient.”
The WTO complaint was lodged just days ahead of a possible first-phase announcement of the India-US trade deal expected before July 9. The move is widely seen as a negotiation tactic rather than a legal escalation, aimed at building leverage without offering meaningful concessions.
While India accuses the US of violating WTO norms by bypassing consultations, Washington insists its auto tariffs fall under national security exemptions and are therefore outside WTO jurisdiction.
Critics argue that India’s refusal to compromise on core issues while filing international complaints sends the wrong message. “This isn’t multilateralism—it’s manipulation,” a US official commented off record. “India wants the benefits of global trade rules without the obligations.”
India’s stance, analysts warn, could undermine trust with key trade partners who may begin to see New Delhi as more opportunistic than principled in its approach to global commerce.