The BJP-led Government of India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Labour Party-led British Government under Sir Keir Rodney Starmer have claimed that the India–United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, also known as the India–United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, will usher in a new era of mutually beneficial partnership. The agreement, signed on 24 July 2025, was supposed to increase the mobility of capital and people, deepen social and economic ties between the two countries, remove market barriers for goods and services, and empower people and their livelihoods in both nations.
Both leaders have continued to emphasize the significance of this trade relationship while addressing the Global Fintech Fest and the CEO Forum in Mumbai. However, Mr. Starmer’s two-day trade mission to Mumbai on 8–9 October 2025, followed by 10 Downing Street’s press release on 9 October 2025, reveals that “cooking fish in its own oil” aptly describes Britain’s trade strategy in India. This neocolonial approach is more about plundering wealth from the Indian people and transferring it to British corporate capital to sustain the crumbling British economy. The UK–India joint statement and Downing Street’s press release claim that there are twenty-nine investments in India worth over £3.6 billion. A closer examination of these investments shows that the deal benefits British corporations far more than India, and even the investment figures themselves warrant scrutiny.
The United Kingdom is using HSBC India, which has committed $1 billion to launch its innovation bank and invest in India by lending to startups at various stages of their operations. As part of this non-dilutive debt capital financing, HSBC India’s initiative allows Britain to retain ownership without spending a penny from the British Treasury. While Indian capital flows freely into Britain, Indian workers are denied the same freedom. The British Prime Minister has stated that the UK will not relax visa rules for Indian workers. The so-called “cultural ties” between the two nations seem more focused on business interests than on genuine people-to-people connections. Similarly, Graphcore, in partnership with the Japanese investment firm SoftBank Group, plans to invest up to £1 billion in India’s semiconductor industry. This includes establishing a new AI engineering campus in Bengaluru. Once again, Britain is not contributing any funds from its treasury to this initiative.
Tide, the UK’s digital-only financial platform, has pledged to invest £500 million over five years from 2026 to expand its operations in India. However, it offers little in terms of new technology transfer or operational expertise not already available in the Indian market. Instead, its entry may dilute market share and weaken existing Indian financial and banking platforms through increased competition. The investment plans of Revolut, Paysecure, and Prudential are no different from Tide’s strategy, as all seek to enter the Indian market under similar terms and objectives.
GEDU Global Education plans to invest £200 million in India. However, its goal is not to expand educational access but to deepen the privatisation of education—from schools to universities—by creating a platform for British educational institutions to profit from the Indian market. Similarly, the National Open College Network and the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) offer little of genuine educational value beyond selling qualifications and certificates to generate profits from India’s education sector.
Acron Aviation, Rapiscan UK, and ICF Projects are investing in India’s aviation market in ways that primarily benefit British manufacturing and service sectors. These ventures involve neither significant technology transfer nor the establishment of production facilities that could create local employment. Acron Aviation expects to earn £68 million, Rapiscan UK projects £60 million in revenue over five years, and ICF Projects anticipates generating £4.2 million within three years from the Indian market.
Clinisupplies plans to invest £36 million to enter India under the pretext of establishing a new medical device plant and a Global Capability Centre in Madhya Pradesh. Consultancy firms such as Mace, Croftz, and Lloyd’s Register are also investing in India, but they are expected to recover their investments mainly through management consultancy fees, without adding meaningful value to the Indian market in terms of skills or knowledge. Similarly, FIDO AI and Microbira’s AI platforms are entering the Indian market solely to generate profits, offering little in terms of innovation or skill development.
Allenwest, Snorkel, Arup, and Rail Vision UK could make meaningful contributions if they shared technology, skills, and knowledge in genuine partnership with their Indian counterparts. However, these companies are making minimal investments while aiming to extract substantial profits from the Indian market.
Turntide Technologies and Oxford Nanopore Technologies are investing in India but offer little new in technology or services not already available locally. Similarly, Sintali Limited and Wavesight Limited view the Indian market purely as a source of profit, with no meaningful contribution to innovation or capacity building. Such companies risk undermining the Government of India’s Make in India initiative by prioritising profit extraction over genuine development. Likewise, Frugalpac, ITC, Rhea Distilleries, Rutland Square Spirits Forecast, and A.G. Barr PLC are likely to weaken India’s domestic distillery and brewery industries through their entry and competitive practices.
The rent-seeking nature of British trade and investment strategies reveals that most UK investments in India are concentrated in the service sector, while India’s sixty-four investments in Britain—worth approximately £1.3 billion—focus on infrastructure development. The India–UK trade agreement primarily creates opportunities for British corporations operating in India, offering little benefit to the working people of either country. The much-celebrated notion of “cultural exchange” is largely a façade; business interests remain the true driving force, consistent with Britain’s historical image as a nation of shopkeepers. These patterns of exchange continue to reflect colonial and neo-colonial trade practices that lie at the heart of racialised capitalism in the United Kingdom.
---
*Academic based in UK
Comments