20-JUN-2025,02 :30PM A fresh political controversy has erupted over Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal’s recent remarks concerning the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The statement, which questioned the effectiveness and terms of the pact, has drawn sharp criticism from senior Congress leader and former Union Minister Anand Sharma, who termed it “uncalled for and diplomatically insensitive.”
The issue has once again brought India’s trade strategy and foreign policy engagement with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) into the spotlight, with stakeholders debating the merits and challenges of regional trade pacts.
Piyush Goyal’s Remarks on ASEAN FTA Raise Eyebrows
Piyush Goyal Expresses Concern Over Trade Imbalances
In a recent business summit, Piyush Goyal voiced concerns regarding the impact of the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement on Indian manufacturers and small businesses. He claimed the deal, signed in 2009 under the UPA regime, led to an “unequal playing field” and increased trade deficits with ASEAN nations.
“Several FTAs signed in the past were not in India’s best interest. The India-ASEAN agreement, in particular, needs a serious review. We are committed to protecting our industries from unfair practices,” said Piyush Goyal, adding that India must now negotiate from a position of strength and economic self-reliance.
Goyal’s comment triggered strong responses from opposition leaders and trade analysts, who argue that such statements risk undermining India’s diplomatic relations in Southeast Asia.
Anand Sharma Counters Piyush Goyal’s Position
Piyush Goyal’s View Called “Diplomatically Harmful” by Former Minister
Veteran Congress leader Anand Sharma, who played a key role in shaping India’s trade policy during the UPA era, hit back strongly at Piyush Goyal’s remarks. Speaking at a press briefing, Sharma said, “The minister’s comment is not only misleading but also diplomatically unwise. The ASEAN relationship is a cornerstone of our Act East Policy. Casting aspersions on trade pacts without context sends the wrong signal.”
Sharma defended the India-ASEAN FTA, claiming it opened access to markets and fostered stronger regional ties. He added that trade deficits are influenced by broader global factors and should not be simplistically attributed to past policy.
“India must maintain credibility in its trade commitments. Piyush Goyal’s view reflects a narrow understanding of global trade dynamics,” Sharma asserted.
India-ASEAN Trade: A Complex, Evolving Partnership
Piyush Goyal’s Criticism Sparks Debate on Economic Diplomacy
The India-ASEAN trade pact covers trade in goods, services, and investment, and has been instrumental in boosting bilateral relations. ASEAN is India’s fourth-largest trading partner, and in 2022-23, trade between the two reached nearly $131 billion.
While critics of the FTA echo Piyush Goyal’s concerns about increasing imports and limited access for Indian exports, many experts argue that reforms and renegotiations, rather than outright rejection, are the way forward.
Former diplomats have cautioned against using public platforms to criticize trade partners. “Such remarks, especially by high-ranking ministers like Piyush Goyal, can impact India’s diplomatic trust with the ASEAN bloc,” said a former Indian envoy to Southeast Asia.
Political Reactions: BJP vs Congress Narrative Deepens
Piyush Goyal Targeted by Congress for “Shifting Blame”
Congress leaders have accused Piyush Goyal of deflecting blame for the current trade policy challenges by targeting past agreements. They argue that since the BJP has been in power for over a decade, it is responsible for making necessary course corrections if any imbalance persists.
“Instead of fixing issues, Piyush Goyal is trying to rewrite history. Blaming Congress won’t solve today’s economic concerns,” said a statement from the Congress trade and commerce cell.
Meanwhile, BJP leaders have backed Goyal’s assertion, saying the NDA government is committed to creating trade agreements that are more equitable, with a focus on Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat.
Industry Response: Mixed Views on ASEAN Trade Pact
Piyush Goyal’s Comments Find Support in Certain Business Circles
Industry responses to Piyush Goyal’s comments have been mixed. While large exporters and tech firms value the ASEAN market, several small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) share the minister’s concern that FTAs have increased competition unfairly.
“Local industries, especially in electronics and textiles, have suffered due to cheaper imports from ASEAN countries. We welcome Piyush Goyal’s call for a review,” said a member of the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT).
However, others warn against protectionism. “ASEAN trade offers long-term growth potential. Rather than backtracking, we must push for trade facilitation and reforms,” said a spokesperson from the Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO).
ASEAN Diplomats Respond Cautiously
Piyush Goyal’s Statement Met with Concern Among Regional Partners
While there has been no official statement from ASEAN countries yet, diplomatic insiders say some member states have taken note of Piyush Goyal’s criticism and may raise the issue in upcoming bilateral dialogues.
Trade experts warn that India’s credibility in future negotiations, including the India-UK FTA and Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, could be affected if existing commitments are questioned in public.
Conclusion: Piyush Goyal’s Remarks Trigger Strategic Debate
Union Minister Piyush Goyal’s statements about the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement have ignited a larger conversation about India’s trade strategy and diplomatic posture. While supporters view his remarks as a bold call for fairness, critics like Anand Sharma see them as diplomatically imprudent and politically motivated.
As India aspires to become a global economic powerhouse, how it manages regional trade partnerships—both in rhetoric and reality—will be crucial. Piyush Goyal may have opened an important debate, but the path ahead requires careful diplomacy, strategic clarity, and collaborative reform rather than unilateral critique.
Source : ANI
