Piyush Goyal’s China Policy Under Fire as US Trade Deal Talks Face Scrutiny

Spread love

By TRH Foreign Affairs Desk

Geopolitics analysts Mao Keji and Chen Zhuo question the Commerce Minister’s strategic judgment, arguing that his earlier optimism over US tariffs on China contrasts with India’s subsequent exposure to American trade pressure.

New Delhi, October 15, 2026 — Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal has come under criticism from Chinese geopolitical and South Asia analysts over his handling of India’s trade policy, particularly his approach to US tariffs, China and negotiations with Washington.

Mao Keji, a geopolitics analyst, criticised Goyal in a post on X, arguing that India needed a far-sighted trade policy at a time of mounting domestic and international pressures. He accused the minister of misjudging the implications of US President Donald Trump’s tariff offensive and failing to anticipate that India itself could become a target of American economic pressure.

Mao’s criticism centres on Goyal’s response to Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announced in April 2025. According to Mao, the Indian minister initially presented the US tariff measures against China as an opportunity for India to attract manufacturing and expand exports, rather than questioning Washington’s tariff strategy.

Mao argued that the subsequent escalation of US trade pressure against India exposed the risks of that approach. He also criticised what he described as a shift in Goyal’s position towards restoring economic and trade engagement with China after India came under pressure from Washington.

The comments reflect a broader debate over whether India can capitalise on global supply-chain shifts without becoming overly dependent on either the United States or China.

Chen Zhuo Questions Goyal’s Strategic Judgment

Chen Zhuo, a South Asia analyst, offered a different but related assessment of Goyal’s political and economic role. The analyst argued that the minister’s approach made sense within the framework of domestic party politics, business relationships and the presentation of the Modi government’s economic record.

According to Chen, Goyal’s public messaging on China and the United States has served a political purpose: presenting US pressure on China as an opportunity for India while portraying closer ties between Modi and Trump as an economic advantage.

Chen maintained that the desire to weaken China does not automatically translate into a strategy for strengthening India. The analyst also questioned the optimism surrounding an imminent India-US trade agreement, arguing that public expectations appeared premature when American negotiators indicated that a deal was not immediately forthcoming.

Chen described Goyal as an effective political operator but questioned his strategic awareness. The analyst also drew comparisons with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, suggesting that some Indian policy statements appeared to be framed through assumptions associated with Chinese perspectives.