Top functionaries of the Narendra Modi government must stop blaming the previous regimes for the problems plaguing the country, but they don’t. In keeping with this mindset, Union Commerce & Industry Minister Piyush Goyal last week found fault with the trade agreements India had with Japan and South Korea. “Since the signing of the agreements exports to both these countries have hardly grown, only the imports have grown,” he pointed out at an event in Delhi. Factually, he is not incorrect. India’s Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with South Korea became effective in January 2010 and with Japan in August 2011.

Before the Korea pact, India’s exports in 2009-10 were $3.42 billion while imports were $8.57 billion. By 2024-25, exports rose modestly to $5.8 billion, but imports jumped to $21.06 billion. With Japan, the pattern is similar. India’s exports stood at $5.09 billion in 2010-11, and imports at $8.63 billion. In the last fiscal, exports were only $6.42 billion while imports had more than doubled to $18.91 billion. These figures show that the benefits of the trade pacts have been asymmetric, leaving India with widening trade deficits vis-à-vis both nations.

However, what Goyal’s statement conveniently overlooks is that his own government has been in power for over a decade, long enough to renegotiate, recalibrate, and even rethink these agreements had it truly believed they were lopsided. Instead, New Delhi continued to live with them, occasionally expressing discontent but rarely taking substantive action to address the issue. It is disingenuous, therefore, to suggest that the economic imbalance with Japan and South Korea is solely the result of Congress-era decisions. To do so is to ignore the continuity of policy responsibility that governance demands.

The Modi government cannot, on the one hand, claim credit for every positive economic outcome and, on the other, absolve itself of blame for everything bad. Governance is not a relay race in which the baton of accountability can be dropped at will. After eleven years in office, the alibi of inherited flaws has worn thin. Moreover, Goyal’s remarks reflect a deeper malaise: the tendency among ministers to use economic platforms for political signaling. The venue was a business conference, yet the tone was unmistakably political. This is unfortunate. The Commerce and industry portfolios require measured, technocratic engagement, not rhetorical blame games.

Investors and exporters look for clarity and confidence in government messaging; they do not expect ministers to dig up decades-old grievances. Policy credibility is predicated upon consistency, not polemics. It is also worth noting that India’s trade challenges are structural and not merely the product of one or two trade pacts. The stagnation of exports to Japan and South Korea must be viewed in the broader context of India’s competitiveness. Both countries are highly industrialised economies with sophisticated supply chains and stringent quality norms. India’s limited export basket—dominated by raw materials and intermediate goods—struggles to find scale in such markets.

The solution, therefore, lies not in blaming previous agreements but in upgrading domestic manufacturing, improving logistics, incentivising innovation, and building capacity in high-value sectors. Indeed, the Modi government’s ‘Make in India’ and Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes are steps in that direction. But these programmes will yield results only if accompanied by transparent and stable trade policies, structural reforms, and genuine collaboration with industry stakeholders. Blame games will in no way help exports or the economy.