Bilateral trade agreements are increasingly displacing the WTO-led multilateral framework. Critically examine the implications for India.

The WTO counts 388 regional and bilateral trade agreements in force [1]. Its Appellate Body has been unable to hear appeals since December 2019 [2]. As trade rules are increasingly written in bilateral talks rather than at the WTO, India gets quicker deals and access suited to its needs. It also loses the protection of acting together with other countries that the multilateral system gave it.

Opportunities for India

• Deeper market access: India–UAE CEPA trade crossed US$100 billion in FY 2024-25. India–UK CETA gives duty-free access to 99% of India's exports [3].
• Investment-linked deals: India–EFTA TEPA carries a US$100 billion FDI objective over 15 years and one million direct jobs [4]. WTO rules never offered this kind of commitment.
• Calibrated protection: bilateral deals let India keep sensitive sectors out. In the India–US deal, rice, wheat, dairy and poultry got no tariff concessions [5].
• Speed: bilateral talks avoid the WTO's need for consensus among all members, which stalled the Doha Round.

Concerns for India

• Unequal bargaining power: at the WTO, India leads groups of developing countries on food security. In bilateral talks it faces a larger power alone. The India–US BTA, announced in February 2025, was "heavily delayed" by U.S. tariff actions [6].
• No neutral umpire: with the Appellate Body paralysed [2], disputes are decided more by power than by rules. Deals without strong dispute clauses leave India exposed if a partner raises tariffs again.
• Erosion of MFN and S&DT: preferential agreements are exceptions to the WTO's rule of treating all members equally [1]. They divert trade away from non-members and weaken special and differential treatment for developing countries.
• WTO-plus demands: partners push for commitments on intellectual property, data flows, labour, environment and farm access. This narrows India's policy space.
• Spaghetti bowl effect: overlapping rules of origin raise compliance costs for MSMEs. India left RCEP in 2019 partly out of fear of import surges.

On balance, bilateral deals bring India market access and capital, but cost it bargaining power and legal certainty. India should pursue calibrated bilateralism, with signed texts that include dispute clauses, safeguards for sensitive sectors and parliamentary scrutiny. At the same time, it should lead efforts to restore the Appellate Body. This two-track approach keeps trade rules-based and fair, in line with SDG 17's call for a universal, open and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system.