Bhabani Shankar Nayak
The government of India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the British government led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has claimed that the India–UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, also known as the India–UK Free Trade Agreement ment will usher in a new era of mutually beneficial partnership.
However, Starmer’s two-day trade mission to Mumbai on 8 and 9 October, followed by 10 Downing Street’s press release on 9 October, reveals that cooking fish in its own oil is the British trade strategy in India. The neocolonial trade strategy is more about plundering wealth from the people of India and transferring it to British capitalist corporations to sustain their crumbling economy. The UK-India joint statement reveals nothing, but Downing Street’s press release claims that there are 29 investment proposals in India worth over £3.6 billion. The dissection of these investments reveals how this trade deal benefits British corporations more than India, and the investment figures can be questioned as well. The UK is using HSBC India, which has committed $1 billion to launch its innovation bank and invest in India by lending to startups at various stages of their operations. As part of this non-dilutive debt capital financing, HSBC India’s initiative allows Britain to retain ownership without spending a penny from the British Treasury. While Indian capital flows freely into Britain, Indian workers are not afforded the same freedom. The British Prime Minister has stated that the UK will not relax visa rules for Indian workers. The so-called “cultural ties” between the two nations appear to revolve more around business interests than genuine people-to-people connections. Similarly, Graphcore, in partnership with the Japanese investment firm SoftBank Group, plans to invest up to £1 billion in India’s semiconductor industry. This investment includes establishing a new AI engineering campus in Bangalore. Once again, Britain is not contributing any funds from its treasury toward this initiative.
Tide, the UK’s digital-only financial platform, has pledged to invest £500 million over five years starting in 2026 to expand its operations in India. However, it offers little in terms of new technology transfer or operational expertise that does not already exist in the Indian market. Instead, its entry may dilute market share and weaken existing Indian financial and banking platforms through increased competition. Similarly, the investment plans of Revolut, Paysecure, and Prudential are no different from Tide’s strategy, as all seek to enter the Indian market under similar terms and objectives.
GEDU Global Education plans to invest £200 million in India. However, the goal is not to expand access to education but rather to further deepen the privatisation of the education sector, from schools to universities, by creating a platform for British educational institutions to enter the Indian market and pursue education as a business for profit. Similarly, the National Open College Network and the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) offer little of genuine educational value beyond selling qualifications and certificates, primarily to generate substantial profits from India’s education sector.
Acron Aviation, Rapiscan UK, and ICF Projects are investing in the Indian aviation market in ways that primarily benefit British manufacturing and service sectors. However, these ventures neither involve significant technology transfer nor establish production facilities in India that could generate local employment. Acron Aviation expects to earn £68 million, while Rapiscan UK projects £60 million in revenue over five years from the Indian aviation market. ICF Projects anticipates generating £4.2 million in revenue from India within three years.
Clinisupplies plans to invest £36 million to enter the Indian market under the pretext of establishing a new medical device plant and a Global Capability Centre in Madhya Pradesh. Consultancy firms such as Mace, Croftz, and Lloyd’s Register are also investing in India, but they are expected to recover their investments primarily through management consultancy fees, without contributing meaningful value to the Indian market in terms of knowledge and skills. Similarly, FIDO AI and Microbira’s AI platforms are entering the Indian market solely to generate profits, offering little in terms of new skills, knowledge, or technological innovation.
Allenwest, Snorkel, Arup, and Rail Vision UK could make meaningful contributions if they were to share technology, skills, and knowledge while developing genuine partnerships with their Indian counterparts. However, these companies are making only minimal investments while aiming to generate substantial profits from the Indian market.
Turntide Technologies and Oxford Nanopore Technologies are investing in India, but offer little that is new to the Indian market in terms of technology or services already available locally. Similarly, Sintali Limited and Wavesight Limited appear to view the Indian market solely as a source of profit, with no meaningful contribution to innovation or capability building. Such companies risk undermining the Government of India’s Make in India initiative by prioritising profit extraction over genuine partnership and development. Likewise, Frugalpac, ITC, Rhea Distilleries, Rutland Square Spirits Forecast, and A.G. Barr PLC are expected to weaken India’s domestic distillery and brewery industries through their market entry and competitive practices.
The rent-seeking nature of British trade and investment strategies reveals that the majority of UK investments in India are concentrated in the service sector, whereas most of India’s 64 investments in Britain—worth approximately £1.3 billion—focus on infrastructure development. The India–UK FTA primarily creates opportunities for British corporations operating in India, offering little benefit to the working people of either country. The much-celebrated idea of “cultural exchange” is largely a façade; business interests remain the real driving force, consistent with Britain’s historical image as a nation of shopkeepers.
The writer teaches at the London Metropolitan University.
