India is said to be on the brink of a historic trade deal with the United States, and if done right, it could mean more than just political wins and export numbers. It could mean more choice, lower prices, and better products for Indian consumers. But here’s the catch, buried under headlines about “zero tariffs” are fineprint quotas, selective exemptions, and old-school protectionism dressed up as strategic policy. What is being sold as trade liberalization might still end up coddling legacy industries at the expense of the very people the economy is supposed to serve.

Tariffs don’t just restrict trade; they restrict choice, inflate prices, and punish innovation. Whether it’s a safer car part, a more effective cancer drug, or a cutting-edge piece of hardware, the end user always pays the price of protectionism. That is not sovereignty; that is the government putting a premium on your needs. Indian consumers have long borne the cost of high import duties. Take the automotive sector: while domestic manufacturers have grown under tariff walls, consumers have paid more for less outdated safety features, poor fuel efficiency, and limited electric vehicle options. It is no coincidence that Tesla delayed entering the Indian market, citing the 100 per cent import duty on fully assembled cars. Even essential goods like medical devices come with inflated price tags due to import taxes. Ask any parent importing specialty formula for a child with severe allergies often unavailable domestically, and you’ll hear the same frustration – why are we penalized for needing a product our market does not offer? Supporters of quotas call them a “balanced” way to boost trade while protecting domestic industry. But quotas do not protect the consumer. They ration their access. Once the cap is hit, prices rise, options disappear, and black markets emerge. This has happened with everything from electronics to alcohol across the globe. Artificial scarcity always invites distortion. At the Consumer Choice Center, we believe consumers, not bureaucrats, are best placed to judge what is reasonable, affordable, and necessary.

Advertisement

Trade deals should reflect that. The goal of U.S.-India trade should not just be geopolitical alignment. It should be economic abundance. Prime Minister Modi and President Trump discussed growing bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. That ambition is welcome. But it won’t be achieved through half-measures or asterisks on “zero-tariff” promises. Yes, India must support its industries, but not by treating consumers as collateral damage. Protectionism often defends the past, not the future. And if innovation is to flourish, markets must be open, not gated behind quota systems and tariff walls. Indian consumers aren’t passive recipients of state benevolence. They are active participants in the global marketplace.

From tech workers seeking better hardware to doctors sourcing life-saving devices, people deserve the freedom to choose what to buy, from whom, and at what price. If policymakers are serious about empowering consumers, they must back a trade deal that tears down barriers, not rebuilds them with quota caps. A “zero-tariff” policy with limits is a contradiction. It is protectionism in disguise. What India needs is genuine openness and trade that encourages competition, rewards innovation, and puts consumers at the center. Economic freedom does not end at the factory gate; it ends at the checkout counter. India has a chance to lead, not just as a strategic power, but as a champion of consumer-driven prosperity. But that begins with a simple idea: trust consumers. Let them choose.

(The writer is Indian Policy Associate, Consumer Choice Center.)