[Commerce Secretary Rajesh Agarwal]]

According to sources not far removed from the policy Establishment, the 1994 Manipur cadre IAS officer and Commerce Secretary, Rajesh Agarwal, has surrendered India’s digital sovereignty by succumbing to, what else, US pressure. A draft-Free Trade Agreement (FTA) he has negotiated and awaiting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s approval, accepts the American viewpoint that India’s “digital trade barriers” are a hindrance to free trade and will have to be done away with.

Nothing in New Delhi ever remains secret for long, and the bureacratic grapevine about the arrangement to further the FTA with the US, is even more revealing. Significantly and, perhaps, with the PM’s consent, where the FTA negotiations with America are concerned, Agarwal reports NOT to his own minister, Piyush Goel, but directly to the Minister for External Affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. Jaishankar, it may be recalled, has engineered the policy of appeasing Trump. And, yes, is the same person who, as Joint Secretary (Americas) in MEA and lead negotiator in 2008 of the 123 Agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation with the US, surrendered India’s sovereign right to conduct nuclear testing and to obtain a tested thermonuclear deterrent. It advanced, in the process, not the country’s interests but the longstanding American nonproliferation goal of restricting India to the low-yield fission weapon threshold.

There’s no end to how much, and how methodically, Jaishankar is stripping India of its strategic independence. The surrender of digital sovereignty now — a generous giveaway to the US, is something that American trade representatives plainly did not expect so easily to obtain. Jaishankar is the Indian government’s expert in waving the white flag before the engagement even begins and, it is hardly surprising that he wrangled the authority to shape the FTA to benefit America. Courtesy Jaishankar, Bye! Bye! India’s absolute right to thermonuclear security and now digital security. Jaishankar can plead that in 2008 he did the Prime Minister’s bidding, and that it was Manmohan Singh who demanded he secure that agreement at any cost, because it would be an economic “Open Sesame” for the country to tap into the wealthy US market and, in the bargain, to reform and liberalise its own economy. Is Jaishankar’s excuse henceforth to be that sacrificing India’s digital sovereignty is what Modi instructed him to do?

Modi and India are not in the same league as Xi and China, of course. But the contrast in the reaction of the two countries to Trump’s economic bullying could not be starker, more different. It reflects in China’s case the “long view” strategic mindedness that has always animated Chinese policies leading to its capture over the past two decades of all rare earth resources outside PLA-occupied Tibet and Xinjiang for use in case the US ever acted up. That time was now, and no sooner Trump issued a ban on advanced software and semiconductor chips to China, Xi cutoff all supply of Chinese-controlled rare earths magnets in particular — central to electric vehicles, the automobile industry and industry in general, and to the production of sophisticated American military hardware, until Trump cried Uncle! The US President’s request for a meeting with Xi is being pondered by Zhongnanhai even as Trump is getting hot under the collar! This is strict reciprocity — an immediate tit-for-tat measure that merely confirmed to Washington that it was China, and not Modi’s India, it was dealing with.

The Modi goverment, on the other hand, quickly fell in line with the ever fluctuating Trump diktat. It bought energy from Russia initially because Washington okayed it. It was misrepresented by Jaishankar among others in the government as India asserting its sovereign right to buy oil cheaply from wherever it is available. Indeed, Trump publicly declared and repeated at the recent ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur that Modi in fact ended Op Sindoor after he threatened India with “250% tariffs”, and how the Indian PM promised to zero out Russian oil imports. Sure enough, the pretence of ‘national interest’ prompting Indian oil buys from Russia lasted only until Trump sanctioned the Russian energy majors Rosneft and Lukeoil earlier this week whereupon the public sector Indian Oil and the private sector Reliance, taking their cue from the government, quickly changed tack and stopped buying Russian oil on a coin. So, the conclusion was right after all that India is suseptible to pressure on all issues and on all counts, Trump’s pressing Modi led to the Indian government terminating the oil trade with Russia.

Trying to cover the government’s tracks on preemptive compliance with the US policy changes, Jaishankar complained ineffectually about the energy import standards being unfairly imposed — China has not been so sanctioned, etc. Boo-hoo! And to squawk about the Ukraine War needing to end so India can resume oil supplies from Russia implying, note this, acceptance of the fact that Trump’s decision is what persuaded the Modi dispensation to sever India’s connection to Russian oil!! So Trump essentially decides who India buys oil from, not India’s national interest! If one part of Trump’s public declaration is correct — that his oil sanctions on Russia ended India’s Russian oil purchases, how can the other part of the same Trumpian statement issued in the same breath — that he forced an end to Sindoor be “arrant nonsense” as senior Indian officials got up the guts to label it some 5 months after the event?

Meanwhile, surprise, surprise, Indian imports of American oil shot up to nearly to half a million barrels per day, making up the projected Russian oil cutoff. The Indian government’s patent inability to look beyond its nose meant that it was not prepared to react by instantly switching its trade, except an alternative market for Indian goods was not cultivated. It placed India in its familiar role as beggar, pettitioning Trump for reduced tariffs and for a waiver of sanctions on Chabahar — the Iranian port central to India’s Afghanistan and Central Asia policy, when keeping this channel open for trade serves the US interest as well. With Washington extending its waivers, the impression of India as a client state was confirmed. Trump then bolted down this impression and worse by saying as regards Sindoor that both Munir and Modi told him that “You should let us fight”!! At a stroke it elevated Trump/US as the entity to decide whether the two countries fight at all, and personally equated Munir and Modi and, at one remove, Pakistan and India! And then cushioned the blow by calling the two countries “tough people”. REALLY!

Whatever the truth, the fact is Trump at once mocked Modi and to, blunt the sharp edge of his mockery, laid it on a bit thick on the flattery front, hoping the Indian PM can be flattered out of reacting badly as well. Trump: “I’ll tell you what, Prime Minister Modi is the nicest looking guy, [someone] you’d like to have as your father” and then added, “[Modi] is a killer,…tough as hell.” [All Trump quotes in Jennifer A. Dlouhy, “Trump says He Threatened 250% Tariffs on ‘Killer’ Modi”, Bloomberg, Oct 29, 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2025-10-29/trump-says-he-threatened-250-tariffs-on-killer-modi-pakistan ]

Flattery works — who should know this better than Trump?! Succumbing to its also covers up for the Indian government’s strategic myopia — intrinsic to its decision and policy making, and is an official trait welcomed hugely by the US, the West, and China who waste no time exploiting to the max.

So the US not only dictates who India buys its energy from, who it can fight and how, but also its geopolitics!

With regard to the FDA with the US, what has Agarwal got in return for India giving up its digital sovereignty, pray? Reportedly, reduced tariffs to the 15% level!? Satisfactory, Mr. Jaishankar?

When Shakespeare’s Richard III had his horse lanced from underneath him at the Battle of Bosworth Field, his lament — “My kingdom for a horse” is apparently taken literally as a negotiating strategy by Messrs Jaishankar and Agarwal — who, between them, have, in fact, given away strategic India for a song!

The Polish sociologist Stanislaw Andrezki aptly described India as a “land of subjugations”, but know this, that in the nuclear-digital age that is upon us, foreign subjugation is actually internalised and mainstreamed in the manner Jaishankar has done in gutting India’s thermonuclear weapons, and now his bureaucratic tool, Agarwal, is doing in kicking India’s digital sovereignty over the side, vide negotiated accords, albeit accompanied by rousing nationalist rhetoric on the sidelines voiced by Modi, Rajnath Singh and assorted others. Cry, the beloved country (the title of Alan Paton’s sorrowful account of his benighted homeland — the apartheid-ridden South Africa, that now fits the 21st century to-date India to a T, but for quite different reasons)!

Agarwal’s resume’ refers to an MA from IIFT (Indian Institute of Foreign Trade) run on subventions from Commerce Ministry. That makes him, unusual for GOI, a round peg in a round hole. But, does he understand even a bit of the digital world he has to have a grasp of? Assuming he does, the trouble is in the talks to hammer out an FTA with the US, he is taking his marching orders from Jaishankar — a generalist with no known specialisation other than international affairs (JNU) but with talent for an aphoristic turn of phrase — useful in a diplomat, but not essential, and a pronounced tilt US-ward, evidenced in his career in MEA. So, lack of domain knowledge bothers Jaishankar little, as long as the negotiation is tending in the direction of the Big Tech Companies — almost all American, which is what Agarwal is meant to ensure.

But what’s digital sovereignty all about?

No country in recent times has been as profligate as India in gifting away the technology space and space for technological growth and development with indigenous talent and resources within the country. The government sector does not seem to be even aware of what’s at stake. Take the example of the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) — a single platform for all financial transactions described as a “unique achievement and only sovereign digital ecosystem winning worldwide appreciation” according to one assessement by experts. News reports suggest that NPCI is teaming up with OpenAI — the leading US Artificial Intelligence firm — talk of getting the fox into the henhouse! — OpenAI could then weaponise the platform, unbenownst to NCPI, and discover one day, as Nayara Energy — the Indo-Russian oil refining and marketing company did, that Microsoft hired to provide services, shutdown Nayara operations without any notice! This is but a taste of what may be in the offing by being reckless in allowing big tech companies entry into the Indian milieu. Imagine the disruptive power Washington would wield through the agency of OpenAI over the Indian economy should this collaborative venture take off! The Modi PMO should instruct NCPI to void the deal immedately and kick OpenAI out of its premises before any real harm is done. In fact, no Indian LLM (large language model) under development should be allowed any foreign connection for any reason. And that guardrail has to be erected as of yesterday!

Nayara Energy is but one instance, of the Indian government allowing a noose to be placed around NCPI. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is actually working with Indian government tech incubators to guarantee that the next IP (Internet protocol) model is erected on AWS platform! Talk of lacking any common sense, leave alone displaying tech competence. The US-led West and China, moreover, have been relentless in compromising the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This is no bad thing to happen because under its aegis the Indian government has surrendered “significant industrial policy space”. The threat to undermine it would be enough during this WTO crisis for India to win back this space. Instead, the Commerec Ministry has made concessions on source code access — India cannot anymore demand source codes for any capital hardware purchase, including in a license production deal, cross-border data flows, open government data, compulsory licensing, and asymmetrical access to government procurement — most of them made during Agarwal’s time as Commerce Secretary.

Movement of skilled labour is a big agenda point for Modi to consolidate his electoral hold on the growing Middle Class, but even when the US and European states have conceded this point, it has not stopped Trump, say, from closing the H1B visa channel, or protecting the rights and the physical wellbeing of Indian techies working in America, what with MAGA gunning for them and for any ethnic Indian, in fact. But this seamless flow of skilled labour surely cannot explain, leave alone justify yielding on the country’s “core digital interests”. Rather than using Indian brainpower, as the abovementioned assessment says, “as leverage ” we are actually allowing the US and the West through their Big Tech Companies to pay them with what they most want from India — high-tech manpower hires to assist them in digitally colonising India.

The US is, moreover, insisting on provisions in the FTA that prevent “(1) India from imposing taxes on digital players headquartered in the US, (2) India from leveraging its data advantage and creating national digital champions, including through sharing anonymised government data exclusively with Indian domestic entities, and (3) India from effectively regulating the digital sector.”

How does all of this serve the National Interest, Modiji??

The US, according to those who have knowledge of trade negotiations, “can secure the above and many other [insidious] objectives in the digital sector by getting India to agree to JUST THIS ONE SENTENCE in the trade accord: Both countries agree to grant non-discriminatory treatment to digital services, and suppliers of these services, from the other country.” It cannot be allowed to be inserted/included in the FTA text — and Agarwal better be alert to any variations on this theme being brought into the working draft document.

The homework has already been done by well-meaning Indian entities desirous of protecting the country’s sovereignty and digital space in its entirety that people like Jaishankar have made playthings of. The pity is Prime Minister Modi does not seem to quite appreciate the looming digital danger staring the country in the face. He seems happy to give audience to Sundar Pichai of Microsoft and Satya Nadella of Google/Alphabet in the expectation that these India-origin types will think of India’s interest, when, in reality, these NRIs, as the Indian government, ought to have realised by now are worse than useless in speaking up for India and its interests, what to speak of advancing them.

Recall that with Trump’s punitive policies at a high pitch not a single NRI notable spoke up for India; many of them actually argued that India had a “bad narrative” on Op Sindoor they couldn’t possibly propagate, when the truth is the Indian techies in America are fair weather sailors, happy to board the Indian ship, join in Howdy Modi! kind of circuses in America, but just a bit of headwind gets them into a tizzy and into a “distanced from India”-mode. India owes them nothing. The Nadellas and the Pichais of the world look out for themselves and the US firms they head, especially when the bottomline suggests that “the potential gains of a digital sovereignty framework could be in the trillions of dollars [for India] as compared to a few billions invested [in India]” by these foreign entities.

And if the United States of America is Modi’s great model to emulate, perhaps, the Prime Minister and his minders should look at how the Trump government has moved to impose sovereign oversight on foreign companies, like Tik Tok. It ringfenced it from its Chinese parent, subjected its algorithm use to domestic control/royalties, and confined sensitive operations to ‘transparent’ clean rooms” thus ensuring foreign tech companies “comply with national rules when governments act decisively.”

Ironic then that this is the US that insists the presumably free, independent and sovereign Republic of India not take steps needed to guard its own sovereign digital space and industry in every way possible in the manner Washington has done to protect its digital environment. And, more alarmingly, that this is the United States of America dictating to the Modi government to leave “Digital India” open to “free trade” and extremely vulnerable to American companies, and to other international predators.

The digital peril Messrs Jaishankar and Rajesh Agarwal have deliberately, and with great forethought, put the Indian nation in, suggests that Digital Sovereignty is no part of the Indian government’s thinking on internal or external security. The supposedly hypernationalist regime that Narendra Modi runs in New Delhi is seemingly OK with all this.