LONDON — Britain will not relax visa rules for Indian workers under its new trade agreement, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, drawing a measured reaction from India’s government and observers.
Starmer, leading a delegation of more than 120 business, cultural and academic figures, arrives in Mumbai for a two-day trade mission aiming to solidify the U.K.–India free trade agreement reached in July.
Speaking en route, Starmer asserted that visa liberalization is “not part of the plans” and reiterated that the free trade pact has no visa component. “We didn’t open up more visas,” he said. “The issue is not about visas — it’s about business-to-business engagement and investment and jobs and prosperity coming into the United Kingdom.”
The U.K. leader also tied immigration policy to enforceability on returns, noting that India already has a returns agreement, making linkages between visa access and deportation more feasible.
Reaction from India
While India has not issued a sharp public rebuke, Indian media and analysts noted the decision with caution and restraint. Some commentators saw the move as aligning with Starmer’s domestic political pressures rather than a reflection of diplomatic friction.
An Indian business outlet observed that the free trade agreement “did not include visa liberalization” and that both countries had already locked in temporary business travel arrangements under existing frameworks.
In government circles, sources emphasized that while visa access is always a point of interest in India–U.K. economic dialogue, New Delhi is likely to maintain its focus on trade, investment and protecting its leverage in negotiations, rather than making visa liberalization a showpoint.
Analysis & Implications
The U.K. decision underscores the delicate balancing Starmer must strike between domestic political imperatives to curb immigration and ambitions to deepen economic ties with rapidly growing economies like India. The refusal to couple trade liberalization with visa expansion may constrain sectors—especially technology, higher education and services—that often depend on mobility of skilled labor.
For India, which has long pushed for greater access for its professionals and students abroad, the outcome may spark renewed calls for more reciprocal deals or conditional linkages. However, New Delhi’s measured response suggests it may prioritize long-term structural gains over public confrontation.
As Starmer’s mission unfolds, the two sides will likely seek pathways where trade or regulatory cooperation can be advanced without altering visa regimes — yet the omission of migration reforms could limit the full economic promise of the new U.K.–India trade alignment.
