Quiet revolution: How traditional communication won the India-EU trade deal

At a time when diplomacy is increasingly performed in public, compressed into soundbites, hashtags and instant reactions, the India-EU Free Trade Agreement feels almost countercultural. After more than a decade of stalled negotiations and repeated false starts, one of the world’s most consequential trade deals did not come together through urgency, pressure or dramatic breakthroughs. It came together quietly. That quiet matters. The India-EU FTA covers economies that together account for nearly a quarter of global GDP and close to 30 per cent of global trade. Its scale alone makes it historic. But what is more instructive than the numbers is how the deal was arrived at, and how it was communicated. This was not a negotiation driven by spectacle. It was shaped by patience, restraint and a deliberate return to traditional diplomatic communication.

In many ways, this agreement is less about tariffs and market access and more about trust. And trust, especially between complex partners with long memories of failed negotiations, does not emerge from performative diplomacy. It is built slowly, often away from the spotlight. This is also why the public framing of the agreement as “the mother of all deals” has been so effective. The phrase is bold but non-technical. It conveys scale without dragging the audience into the weeds of sectoral carve-outs or tariff schedules. As a piece of political communication, it works because it anchors perception early. It tells people this is historic before the details can fracture the narrative. In a crowded media environment, that kind of framing is not accidental; it is strategic.

What made the India-EU FTA possible was not a single moment of convergence, but a sustained process of communication that unfolded over time. The first, and perhaps most important, shift was the decision to reset the tone of engagement altogether. After years in which trade talks had become synonymous with deadlock, both sides consciously avoided reopening old grievances or assigning blame. That choice was neither naïve nor evasive. It was a recognition that progress required a clean slate, not a post-mortem.

The success of the India-EU FTA can best be understood through the classical framework of the 5Ds of diplomacy: Dialogue, Discussion, Decision, Delivery and Dissemination. Far from abstract theory, these five dimensions shaped how the agreement was communicated into existence. Dialogue rebuilt trust through sustained engagement without reopening old grievances; Discussion prioritised listening over positioning, allowing differences to be acknowledged without derailing progress; Decision was signalled through calm political resolve rather than triumphalist rhetoric; Delivery focused on communicating balance, preparedness and safeguards, not just outcomes; Dissemination ensured legitimacy by tailoring messages across stakeholders, from businesses to farmers to young professionals.

Dialogue resumed across levels - leaders, ministers, negotiators and technical experts - and it did so without the pressure of immediate deliverables. Conversations were framed around long-term alignment rather than transactional wins: supply-chain resilience, sustainability transitions, talent mobility and economic security. Even when disagreements remained unresolved, engagement did not stop. That continuity itself sent a message of seriousness. In traditional diplomacy, showing up consistently is communication.

In a media culture that often treats silence as stagnation, the India-EU process revealed the opposite. The absence of public drama often signals that the real work is actually happening.

Equally important was the way discussions were conducted. Previous rounds of negotiations had collapsed under the weight of hardened positions, with each side asserting demands while talking past the other. This time, listening became central. Sensitive issues — agriculture, sustainability standards, regulatory alignment and data governance —were not forced into artificial resolution. They were acknowledged, contextualised and, in some cases, deliberately sequenced over time.

This shift in approach produced tangible results. The agreement secured preferential access to European markets across 97 per cent of tariff lines, covering almost all of India’s export value, while preserving policy space for sensitive sectors such as dairy and cereals. Such outcomes rarely come from aggressive negotiation; they emerge when communication allows calibration rather than confrontation.

Political leadership mattered, but so did its tone. Messaging throughout remained measured and forward-looking, with no triumphalism or talk of winners and losers. By presenting the agreement as strategic alignment rather than concession, leaders stabilised expectations, reduced domestic pressure on negotiators, and strengthened confidence among markets and stakeholders.

Delivery, too, was handled as a communication exercise rather than a mere procedural step. The way the agreement was explained mattered as much as the agreement itself. Safeguards were clearly articulated. Phased tariff liberalisation was framed not as disruption, but as preparation. MSME-friendly compliance pathways and sector-specific opportunities were highlighted in terms of employment and competitiveness. Labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, leather, and gems and jewellery were positioned as early beneficiaries, reinforcing the idea that the deal was balanced rather than abrupt.

Dissemination was equally deliberate. There was no single, generic narrative pushed across audiences. Businesses were reassured about predictability and integration into European value chains. Professionals and students were informed about expanded mobility opportunities across services sectors. Farmers and traditional industries were addressed through explicit safeguards and selective access. This tailoring mattered. It turned the FTA from a diplomatic milestone into something that different constituencies could recognise as relevant to them.

Soft power quietly reinforced this process. Symbolic gestures, cultural sensitivity, personal connections and visible respect added emotional credibility to institutional negotiations. These moments did not dominate headlines, but they deepened trust. They reminded stakeholders that this was not just a commercial transaction, but a relationship grounded in mutual recognition and mutual restraint. The broader geopolitical context also shaped how the deal was communicated. At a time when the global trading system feels increasingly fragile, with traditional guarantors of stability stepping back, India and the EU were careful not to frame the FTA as opportunistic or reactive. Instead, it was positioned as an exercise in predictability and shared responsibility. Differences - whether regulatory or geopolitical - were acknowledged rather than denied, and deferred rather than dramatised. That realism made convergence possible where perfection would have ensured failure.

Ultimately, the India-EU FTA is a reminder of something diplomacy has always known but often forgets: communication is not an accessory to negotiation; it is the negotiation. By privileging dialogue over drama, listening over posturing, symbolism over spectacle and patience over publicity, India and the EU delivered a deal that once seemed unattainable.

In a fractured global environment obsessed with immediacy, the success of the India-EU FTA offers a quieter lesson. Enduring partnerships are not built through viral moments or rhetorical excess. They are built through sustained engagement, disciplined messaging and the confidence to let substance mature away from the noise, until it is strong enough to speak for itself.

The author is a commentator and writer on cinema, branding, media management and geo-strategic communication. He co-authored the book When Branding Met The Movies, published recently by the National Book Trust. Inputs were provided by Zoya Ahmad and Vaishnavie Srinivasan; views are personal