Sold India ? Privilege Motion Moved Against LoP Over US Trade Deal Attack

On February 11, 2026, the Lok Sabha witnessed one of its most charged debates in recent memory. Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, launched a blistering critique of the Modi government’s Indo-US trade deal, framing it as a betrayal of India’s sovereignty. His speech transformed the Union Budget 2026–27 discussion into a battlefield of competing visions—neoliberal globalization versus nationalistic protectionism.  

Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of bartering away India’s digital sovereignty in a “Faustian pact” with Washington. He argued that the deal dismantled data localization mandates, allowed unrestricted data flows to the US, curtailed digital taxation, and waived source code disclosure requirements. In his view, India’s most valuable resource—its data—was being surrendered in the global race for artificial intelligence dominance.  

The opposition leader warned that the agreement would devastate India’s farmers and textile workers. By slashing tariffs on American imports from 16% to zero while raising Indian export tariffs from 3% to 18%, Gandhi predicted a “storm” of cheap US commodities flooding Indian markets. Analysts echoed his concerns, projecting a 15–20% drop in domestic agricultural prices and job losses exceeding 2 million in the textile .

Beyond trade, Gandhi alleged that India’s petroleum autonomy was being compromised. He suggested that US pressure could curtail discounted Russian oil imports, undermining New Delhi’s multi-alignment strategy. This, he argued, would expose India to inflated energy costs and erode its bargaining power in a volatile global market.  

The ruling party responded with fury. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju accused Gandhi of spreading “useless and false allegations,” announcing a privilege motion to defend institutional integrity. Ravi Shankar Prasad insisted that India under Modi would never bow to external powers, portraying the deal as pragmatic realpolitik in a multipolar world.  

Gandhi sharpened his attack by linking the deal to industrialists Gautam Adani and Anil Ambani, insinuating that international scandals—including references to the Epstein files—had influenced government pliancy. He condemned the 20-year tax holiday for multinational corporations as a blow to fiscal sovereignty and a boon to crony capitalism.  Journalists and analysts amplified the debate. Saba Naqvi praised Gandhi’s intervention for spotlighting critical issues like data sovereignty and agrarian safeguards. Kapil Gahlawat labeled the agreement a “raw deal” that prioritized cronies over sovereignty. Economists projected a 1–2% GDP drag from trade imbalances, while geopolitical experts warned that India risked becoming a peripheral actor in the US-China rivalry.  

By evening, social media platforms buzzed with commentary. Congress leaders branded the deal a “US steal,” while BJP ministers extolled it as a catalyst for $500 billion in investments. Livestreams and digital forums replayed Gandhi’s warnings of textile collapse and energy handover, framing the privilege motion as a diversionary tactic to silence scrutiny.  

The confrontation encapsulated India’s adversarial democracy—where rhetorical hyperbole meets procedural counterstrikes. At its core, the debate interrogated whether India’s pursuit of economic liberalization could coexist with sovereignty safeguards. Gandhi’s hypothetical negotiation stance—demanding equality, energy inviolability, and farmer protections—underscored the stakes of India’s geopolitical trajectory in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.