It’s stressful to arrange marriages. Two families, complete strangers to each other, meet to form an intimate and hopefully lifelong bond. Love and trust need to be built. A permanent coming together needs to happen. And yet, each side must protect itself. Each side must feel they are getting a fair deal. Each side must also believe they have found the best match possible, given what they bring to the table.
Meanwhile, a massive wedding expense has to be incurred, and how to share it must be negotiated. Future plans — especially on how and where the bride and groom will live — have to be decided. Any mismatch in all this, and the deal is off, bringing both parties back to square one to look for another match. Boy, aren’t arranged marriages tough to execute?
And yet, Indians manage to conduct millions of arranged marriages every year. Somehow, we make the system work — where the two sides come together while still protecting their individual interests. Nobody does as many arranged marriages as Indians do. If anything, it should give us hope that we are good negotiators.
Something else that resembles arranged marriages is our effort to strike a trade deal with another nation. Currently, we are in the middle of negotiating one with none other than the USA — the most powerful nation on earth.
Like a typical arranged marriage proposal, India is getting mixed signals. On one hand, we are threatened with penal tariffs, scuttling all chances of meaningful trade. On the other, there is outreach — high-level phone calls and expressions of hope for future ties. It’s the USA attempting to make a match while ensuring it keeps the upper hand and advances its own agenda. Nonetheless, high-level trade negotiations are on with the USA as we speak. One can only hope we get a good deal at the end of it.
We do need strong trade ties with the USA. Not only is it the world’s most powerful nation, it is also the biggest consumer market. Close trade relations with the US will help our economy, GDP, and jobs on the ground. As such, we want this match — or rishta — to happen. However, like any arranged marriage or trade deal, we also need to look out for ourselves.
There are several points of contention between the two sides, which can be grouped into two categories. The first involves pure trade, business, and numbers-related issues — the tariffs we charge them versus the tariffs they charge us. The key items in this list are agricultural commodities, pharmaceuticals, electronics, intellectual property rules, data localization policies, and India’s recognition as a manufacturing hub.
It’s challenging to resolve these issues, but they are eminently solvable. India could reduce some tariffs and concede in a few areas, while getting some concessions in return. These are pure trade issues, and it’s part of regular business to have and resolve them.
What’s proving more difficult to settle is the second category — the geopolitical and sovereignty-related issues, where the USA seems keen on imposing a certain stance on India. The two big ones are:
a) India’s purchases of Russian oil, which the USA opposes because it supports Ukraine, and Russia is at war with Ukraine; and
b) A tacit expectation that India acknowledge or express gratitude for the USA’s “mothering” of the India–Pakistan situation — implying that peace exists largely due to American involvement.
These issues have nothing to do with trade, duties, tariffs, or levies. They almost resemble the new-age wokeness, where one must cut off or “cancel” another economically because of disapproval over unrelated actions. Hence, “cancel Russia” because we don’t like that it invaded Ukraine.
It’s like the high-profile and affluent Vermas coming for an arranged match with the Sharmas — but on the condition that the Sharmas break their old friendship with the Malhotras, because the Malhotras once did something bad to the Aroras, who happen to be friends of the Vermas. Makes sense? Not really. But that’s how some Punjabi families — and, it turns out, even the world — operate.
Now, no matter how badly the Sharmas (India) want the match with the Vermas (USA), this condition undermines something basic — the independence of the Sharmas. From the very start, the Vermas create an imbalanced power dynamic: We will do the rishta provided you do what we say and give up your independence. How can any family or nation agree to this?
Similarly, the imposition of the “mother hen” role in the India–Pakistan issue also takes away India’s sovereign independence. How can we ever let that happen? Remember this: when was the last time trade deals were about giving up independence? When the East India Company arrived in India for trade — about three hundred years ago.
Hence, no matter how good the rishta or how beneficial the trade deal, some red lines must be drawn — by the Sharmas, or by India. And if the Vermas are sane, rational, smart, and empathetic people, they will understand this. Relationships — whether personal or between nations — are complicated. Mixing relationship agendas with trade deals will never lead to good outcomes.
We love the USA. There’s no country that is more creative, innovative, financially astute, free, and powerful in the entire world. It is a democracy like ours, and we are natural allies. We would love to do business with them and want a great trade deal, even if it means giving up some revenue and reducing certain tariffs.
What we cannot give up — and must draw a red line around — is our sovereign independence. It’s not about Russian oil or disputes with Pakistan; it’s about having the choice of whom we do business with and whom we settle scores with. That’s the essence of being a sovereign nation — and of national self-respect.
And whether it’s a family or a nation, we in India believe that no deal — or rishta — is worth it at the cost of self-respect.