When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced what he called “the best trade deal secured by any country” with India, the headline was designed to dazzle. Rolls-Royce, Diageo, British Airways, the National Theatre — all, he said, were “backing Britain.” But step past the photo ops, and very little has actually changed.
THE MIRAGE OF MARKET ACCESS
Scotch whisky, Jaguar cars, British cosmetics, even fine medical devices — these are already sold in India through legal and established channels. Indians who want them can buy them; those who can’t, won’t suddenly start because of a piece of paper signed in Mumbai.
Scotch whiskies are household names in India. Find me an Indian unfamiliar with the varieties — single malt or blended. For many, a visit to the UK includes a near-religious “pilgrimage” to Scottish distilleries, followed by animated retellings of how whisky is brewed in the Highlands. Single malts with unpronounceable names often become the holy grail of WhatsApp debates, where one-upmanship flows as freely as the liquor itself.
This isn’t new. So, unless Sir Keir Starmer unveils a new single malt with a name so uniquely celestial and tongue-twisting to pronounce, he’s unlikely to gather more feathers to his hat for promoting Scotch in India.
Scotch remains a luxury item. Even with tariffs dropping from 150% to 40% over ten years, it won’t become a staple for the average consumer. Meanwhile, Indian whiskies like Amrut and Rampur already dominate the premium segment — affordable, acclaimed, and proudly homegrown.
As for Jaguar Land Rover? Already marketed and assembled in India. The issue isn’t access — it’s affordability and competition.
So what’s really new here?
WHEN OPTICS OUTWEIGH OUTCOMES
Starmer proclaimed that the deal would bring “more investment in the UK, thousands of new jobs across the country, and more money for you and your family.” Strong confident words—the kind designed to travel well in headlines. But where exactly will this investment come from? Who are the investors? In which sectors will these jobs appear?
Those are the questions the British public deserves to hear answered.
It’s one thing to paint a bright picture; it’s another to show the blueprint. Without clarity on who’s investing, on what terms, and how the supposed benefits will materialise, such promises risk sounding like smoke and mirrors—a comforting illusion rather than an economic reality.
The government touts 2,200+ new jobs over the next decade, tied to £6 billion in investment. But when you do the math, that’s roughly £2.7 million per job — a return that any private-sector board would call lunacy. Of course, the numbers aren’t that simple. But the symbolism matters.
India has overtaken Britain in GDP. It builds rockets, bullet trains, and world-class hospitals. It funds global tech companies and exports its own premium whisky. Far from charity, India seeks fair trade and partnership of equals. What Britain needs is a government that understands arithmetic — and the difference between an economic win and a photo opportunity.
THE SMEs ILLUSION
One of the deal’s most publicised benefits is for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which Starmer claims will find it “quicker, cheaper, and easier” to do business with India.
It’s an attractive line. But the reality for SMEs is far more complex. Their primary hurdles are not tariffs or paperwork; they are logistical and structural. To trade successfully with India, a business needs reliable local partners, robust supply chains, and patient capital. Navigating India’s bureaucracy and distribution networks can exhaust even the best-prepared companies.
Unless an SME has a deep-pocketed partner or a clear niche, its chances of meaningful market penetration remain slim — trade deal or not.
THE REAL TRADE — LABOUR MOBILITY
Behind the language of exports lies the real currency of such deals: people. Specifically, the movement of skilled professionals.
India rarely signs a major trade agreement without securing concessions on labour mobility — opportunities for its IT professionals, engineers, and service providers to work abroad. In the early 2000s, Tony Blair’s government eased immigration restrictions, leading to a substantial influx of Indian tech talent that has since become a permanent part of the British landscape.
History now seems poised to repeat itself.
Though Starmer insists visa rules will remain firm, that assurance sounds more like a political necessity than an economic truth. UK-registered Indian IT companies have lobbied hard for greater freedom to move personnel, and Britain faces chronic skill shortages in technology and engineering — areas where India produces a surplus.
At the same time, the U.S. has tightened its H-1B visa rules under Donald Trump’s influence, sharply reducing opportunities for Indian professionals there. Where will that workforce turn next? Almost certainly to Britain, under the soft power of a “trade deal.”
“The trade isn’t whisky for rupees — it’s visas for visibility.”
THE DEFENCE DREAM THAT ISN’T
Some might argue that this deal paves the way for collaboration in defence manufacturing — perhaps in aerospace, shipbuilding, or advanced materials. But that, too, deserves scrutiny.
India’s defence backbone remains deeply intertwined with Russia — from Sukhoi fighters and MiG aircraft to its nuclear submarine program. This dependence creates a strategic dilemma: how far can Britain realistically go in sharing sensitive technology with a nation whose defence ecosystem still runs on Russian design and supply chains?
Rolls-Royce aero turbines may be a possible exception, but beyond that, it’s unclear what the UK can truly offer that India doesn’t already produce, assemble, or import elsewhere. Britain’s defence export capability has shrunk in scope over the decades, and its strategic leverage, once formidable, is now modest compared to the industrial and technological powerhouses India routinely engages with — such as France, Russia, and increasingly, the United States.
Among the cultural talking points was the notion that Bollywood would film more in the UK. This is often presented as a “soft power dividend.” But in truth, that relationship already thrives.
For years, major Indian productions have shot in London, Birmingham, and Scotland — supported by film commissions and tax incentives. Bollywood doesn’t need a trade deal to come to Britain; it comes because the locations are cinematic, the logistics are professional, and the diaspora audience is significant.
“When a Prime Minister touts Bollywood as proof of economic partnership, you know the script is thinner than the plot.”
BRITAIN’S REAL OPPORTUNITY (IF THERE IS ONE)
Instead of symbolic deals, the UK could focus on:
- Joint R&D in renewable energy and green tech
- Co-manufacturing in shipbuilding, aerospace, or healthcare equipment
- Skills-based partnerships rather than product-based ones
Britain might consider selling turbines and defence tech to India, but there’s a quiet obstacle in the room: Russia. For decades, India’s defence backbone — from fighter jets to submarines — has carried Russian DNA. Will India ever open its strategic core to British technology — or trust Westminster with defence secrets that Moscow still holds?
Apart from Rolls-Royce aero engines, there’s little Britain can truly offer that India doesn’t already make, assemble, or buy elsewhere.
“Britain doesn’t need to sell more Scotch in India; it needs to co-engineer the next generation of turbines, engines, and clean technologies with India.”
THE FLAG AND THE REALITY
So yes, Starmer flew the flag for British business in Mumbai. It’s an admirable gesture — and one every Prime Minister must make. But flags are symbols, not solutions.
The real test of any trade agreement is whether it changes the ground beneath our economies — whether it alters what people build, earn, and aspire to. On that score, this deal seems unlikely to move the needle.
India will continue buying Scotch and Jaguars for its elite, just as it always has. British firms will continue hiring Indian IT talent to fill domestic skill gaps. The dance will go on, and both sides will claim success.
But trade, like politics, should ultimately serve people — not just narratives.
“Flying the flag for British business is admirable — but the real test is whether it moves any ships.”
Excellent blog and very well written
Thank you, Shankar — truly appreciate your kind words and support. More insights coming soon.
PSB,
This is an amazing blog, both in content and in style. Punctuated by attention grabbing phrases yet factually offered it creates a narrative that only a spy thriller can possibly do. I was glued to the article from the first word to the last. Marvellous!!
Thank you, Deepak — thrilled the piece resonated so strongly. If it read like a thriller, then perhaps the real drama lies in the diplomacy itself. More to come soon — and I’ll be counting on your discerning eye when they do.
PS….(Mr Bhatia) Friend of 50 years
Your blog and words..articulated seamlessly to entice the sensible readers on social media rather than bore with proclaimed official statements touting algorithm figures.
Six gun Bhatia Shot from the hip that would cutlip the PR but make intelligent people ponder.
Kudos
Thank you, Bobby — coming from a friend of 50 years, that means the world. If the words cut through the noise, it’s because they were aimed at truth, not spin. Grateful for your unwavering support — and your signature flair.
PS you have hit bulls eye, in each paragraph, while shooting from the hip ( borrowed from Deepu)
Your article is well written.
Compare above UK trade talk with following
Mr Modi had gone to Japan, where he suggested collaboration of Japanese technology and Japanese speaking skilled technicians of India called Japan skilled force.
Lots of countries are looking for trade and manufacturing partnership.
Singapore plans to import green electricity from India.
And also collaborate in chip manufacturing in India.
Thank you, Rajan — I appreciate your sharp reflections. The Japan-skilled force idea is a great example of pairing language with labour mobility, and Singapore’s green energy pivot shows how trade can be rooted in shared purpose, not just optics. Glad the piece resonated — more to come as we track how these partnerships evolve.
Interesting read, PSB. I can hardly offer any comment on the politics or the optics of international trade agreements. Even less on Anglo-Indian current affairs!
However, your blog does provide a valuable insight, though it borders on pessimism and negativity. Politics is a very tricky game. A bit like Cricket, which is all about perception by the paying spectators. Politics plays to the voting public!
Keep writing, dear friend. You do bring a smile to my face!
Thank you, Prem — always grateful for your thoughtful reflections. If the tone felt a touch pessimistic, perhaps it’s because the spectacle often overshadows substance. Like cricket, politics plays to the crowd — but someone has to read the pitch beneath the spin. I’m glad the piece brought a smile, even while stirring a few questions. More innings to come!