Jaishankar Points to Trade and Security Frictions in India–US Ties

India and the United States have made progress toward a trade agreement, but unresolved tariff questions and a sensitive security issue continue to weigh on their relationship, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said in New York on September 28.

Speaking at a discussion hosted by the Asia Society, Jaishankar described the pace and complexity of trade negotiations as a principal source of friction. He also said India’s partners need to understand how seriously New Delhi regards terrorism it says has originated from Pakistan over many years. His comments were an account of India’s concerns, not an announcement that the two governments had settled their differences or reached a new trade deal.

Why the trade talks have been difficult

Jaishankar argued that a trade agreement between economies as different as India and the United States cannot be completed quickly simply because both sides want one. India has large numbers of small farmers, producers and factories, he said, and changes to market access can affect them differently from businesses in the United States. Negotiators therefore have to work through the detail of proposed commitments rather than treat a broad political understanding as a finished agreement.

That distinction is important. In February 2026, the two governments announced a framework for an interim trade arrangement and said they would work toward finalising it while pursuing a broader bilateral agreement. A framework sets out an intended path; it does not, by itself, resolve every negotiating issue or establish that all its proposed measures are in force.

Jaishankar said the sides now had something close to an understanding on the trade agreement. But he identified a further question: how changes in the US approach to tariffs would affect what had been discussed. In his account, the earlier basis for reciprocal tariffs had been struck down, while a process under Section 301 of US trade law was still developing.

Section 301 allows the US government to examine certain foreign trade practices and consider a response. US trade authorities opened investigations in 2026 that included India among the economies under examination. The existence of an investigation, however, does not establish what tariff, if any, will ultimately apply to a particular Indian product. For exporters and importers, that uncertainty makes it harder to assess the value of concessions under a prospective agreement.

The practical sticking point, then, is not only what each country might agree to buy or sell. It is also whether negotiators can identify a sufficiently clear and durable tariff setting in which to complete the arrangement. Jaishankar suggested that closing out the agreement would help improve the broader relationship, while stopping short of giving a completion date.

A security concern beyond trade

Jaishankar placed a separate concern alongside the commercial dispute. He said India has faced terrorism from a neighbouring country for decades as a matter of deliberate policy, referring to Pakistan. That is a serious allegation expressed by India’s foreign minister; his remarks should not be read as an independent determination about every attack or about responsibility for specific incidents.

His point about the United States was diplomatic as well as security-related. If an issue India considers fundamental is not sufficiently understood or appreciated by a partner, he said, the relationship is affected. He did not say that trade concessions could resolve that concern. Rather, he presented understanding India’s security priorities as a separate part of maintaining trust between New Delhi and Washington.

The remarks also illuminate why a bilateral relationship can remain important while experiencing friction. A trade framework offers a route toward closer economic ties, but implementing it requires detailed decisions. Tariff policy can alter the terms on which those decisions were negotiated. And differences over a partner’s response to India’s security concerns can persist even if commercial talks advance.

For now, Jaishankar’s assessment is cautiously conditional: he sees room for an agreement to strengthen India–US ties, but says negotiators must still navigate the tariff picture and the interests of two very different economies. His comments on Pakistan underline that, from New Delhi’s perspective, the health of the partnership cannot be measured by a trade deal alone.