India backs a WTO-centred multilateral trading system but is also pursuing bilateral deals such as the India–US BTA. Are the two approaches complementary or contradictory? Discuss.

At the G20 Trade Ministers' Meeting in Milwaukee (2026), India will argue for a rules-based, non-discriminatory trading system with the WTO at its core [1]. On the same visit it aims to finalise an interim India–US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA). The two approaches pull against each other, but in practice they are mostly complementary.

Why the approaches complement each other

• Multilateral route blocked: the WTO Appellate Body has not worked since 11 December 2019 because the US blocked appointments [5]. A bilateral deal limits the damage from the 18% US reciprocal tariff on Indian goods [2].
• Legal space exists: GATT Article XXIV allows free trade areas, and interim agreements leading to them, as an exception to MFN if they cover "substantially all the trade" [6].
• Economic stakes: the US is India's largest trading partner, with $210.1 bn in goods and services trade in 2024 [3]. Tariff relief for generic pharma, gems and aircraft parts depends on concluding the interim deal [2].
• Same red lines on both tracks: India gave no concessions on dairy, wheat, rice and other sensitive farm goods [4]. This matches the food-security position it defends at the WTO.

Where they appear contradictory

• Normalising unilateralism: bargaining under a tariff the US imposed on its own makes measures outside WTO rules look normal. This weakens India's credibility as a champion of multilateralism.
• MFN dilution: cutting tariffs on US goods alone [2] discriminates against other WTO members unless the final BTA meets the Article XXIV test [6].
• Policy-space tension: labour-intensive sectors such as textiles and leather still face 18% [2]. Meanwhile, the WTO reform work plan reopens S&DT alongside "level playing field" issues [5], so concessions India gives bilaterally may be used against its claim to developing-country flexibilities.

Way forward

• Design the BTA to be Article XXIV-compliant [6].
• Seek relief for MSME-heavy sectors in the next round of the deal.
• Help shape the reform text at the General Council instead of only blocking it [5]. Assess the MPIA, which the WTO Director-General calls a "practical, confidence-building bridge" [7].

Overall, the bilateral track is a bridge while the multilateral route is blocked, not a replacement for it. If India keeps its bilateral deals WTO-consistent and protects its red lines, both tracks can serve one goal: an open, fair trading system that also advances SDG 17's call for a universal, rules-based multilateral trading system.