It’s a charming British summer for corporations, following the long-awaited UK-India trade deal signed after three years of negotiation. The Labour Party–led British government has hailed the agreement as “the best deal India has ever agreed to, providing businesses with security and confidence to trade,” and describes it as “a deal for growth.”
British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stated that the deal would “deliver for British people and business” by boosting the UK economy. Using the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model known as the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) projects that UK exports to India will increase by 59.4%, adding £15.7 billion to the British economy and increasing bilateral trade with India by £25.5 billion.
The same DBT modelling reveals that the deal will result in a meagre 0.2% increase in real wages in Britain. As such, it offers little to no tangible benefit for working people in the UK. The agreement includes a provision exempting Indian and British workers from social security payments for three years—a modest gesture that has nonetheless been branded “an unprecedented achievement.”
The deal also claims to improve living standards in India. But how? There appears to be little, if anything, in the agreement for Indian workers. Despite this, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has described the trade pact as “ambitious and mutually beneficial.” Neither the Indian nor British prime ministers have acknowledged that this trade deal primarily serves corporate interests, offering substantial gains to businesses while leaving ordinary workers on both sides largely untouched. The UK-India trade deal is a corporate coup.
Corporate leaders are hailing the UK-India Free Trade Agreement as pathbreaking. From Chivas Brothers Ltd. and Diageo to Mark Kent, Chief Executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, many have welcomed the deal as “transformational,” particularly in light of opportunities in India’s whisky market.
Across sectors—ranging from biomedical corporations and food corporations to luxury knitwear brands, banking institutions, and even the sports industry led by the Premier League—businesses are celebrating the deal, eyeing India’s 60 million-strong middle class, which is projected to grow to a quarter of a billion by 2050.
According to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) World Economic Outlook published in April 2025, India is expected to become the world’s third-largest economy within the next three years. Such a lucrative market has compelled British corporate leaders to swallow the pride and set aside colonial-era prejudices, embracing a trade reality in which “dogs and Indians” now can walk side by side in a racialised capitalist system where white supremacy continues to thrive.
Even the section titled “Protecting Our Values” in the trade agreement carries a condescending tone that echoes British colonial attitudes. It reads:
“Throughout the negotiations, we have championed our values—securing India’s first-ever chapters on anti-corruption, consumer protections, labour rights, the environment, gender equality, and development. We have protected the NHS, defended the UK’s interests, ensured the points-based immigration system is not affected, upheld our high food standards, and maintained our animal welfare commitments throughout. This deal demonstrates our commitment to both workers and businesses, staying true to our values while driving economic growth.”
The language in this paragraph implies as if India lacked principles before this agreement—a patronising assertion that masks deeper, dominant and inherent colonial reminiscences.
These lofty declarations serve as rhetorical cover for a deal crafted not by visionary leaders but by shopkeepers—those who focus on trade margins and tariffs rather than social transformation.
True transformational leadership seeks social progress through trade, business, and politics. This agreement, however, is a deal by shopkeepers, for shopkeepers. It offers nothing of substance to the working people of India or Britain, serving instead the entrenched interests of corporate elites in both nations.
In “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” by Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith defined Britain during his time as “a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. Such statesmen, and such statesmen only, are capable of fancying that they will find some advantage in employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens, to found and maintain such an empire”(p-498). These words were written in the late 18th century and published on March 9, 1776, yet they echo unmistakably in the UK-India trade deal of May 2025. The British empire is dead, but its spirit continues to guide its governing elites and their shopkeeper mentality where people are treated as customers and nation-states reduced to mere markets. The celebration of the UK-India trade deal is merely a reflection of this ideological framework, where a corporate coup is presented as mutually beneficial, all while sidelining the interests of working people.
Comments