As Theresa May packs her bags for India and prepares for the trooping of Britain’s business colours before a gallery of Indian politicians, trade leaders and, most importantly, members of the global media, she’d do well to consider what exactly India wants from a relationship with Britain in the 21st Century.

Thanks to Britain’s new prime-time political soap opera, Brexit, the conversation about a bilateral trade agreement has so far been remarkably one-sided.

Although it is all rather academic until the big-red-Article-50-button is pressed sometime around 2019, May arrives in India hoping to plot the path for some big deals - arms, IT, perhaps even textiles.

Scroll down for video...

The problem is that Theresa May (pictured) has absolutely no leverage, and absolutely no real ability to dictate the terms of any such agreement to India, whose economy is growing at around 7%

Big deals for big money that might, at the very least, reassure people that leaving the EU wasn't such a terrible idea.

India’s future, however, is not at all dependent on a trade deal with the UK.

Although a good deal is a good deal, and India should be keen to capitalise on any opportunity, the current trade relationship was described recently on Twitter as a bit, well, ‘meh’.

Britain is ranked as India’s 17th most significant trade partner.

‘Meh’, indeed. And in short, Germany, the US and China are all credited as being ‘significant’ trading partners with India while Britain, with its Indian ex-pat community of 1.2 million, its historical and cultural connections, has a rather pathetic trade relationship with India.

India simply doesn't need a trade relationship with the UK. It will take one if offered but what it really wants is better terms for its people

The problem is that Theresa May has absolutely no leverage, and absolutely no real ability to dictate the terms of any such agreement to a country whose economy, although limited and certainly not yet ready to be compared to China, is growing at around 7%.

And with this complete lack of leverage Britain does what it does best - prattle on about the Empire.

And with exquisite comic timing, cue Boris Johnson, once Britain’s most visible Brexit campaigner, now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (and the man who recently claimed that Britain was going to make a ‘Titanic’ success of Brexit!) saying, ‘We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny civil service. Are we really unable to do trade deals?’

This constant comparison between Britain’s Imperial past and its current Brexit predicament is frustrating and ultimately pointless.

Boris Johnson, once Britain’s most visible Brexit campaigner, now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs recently said: ‘We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny civil service'.

But it is most frustrating and most pointless to the good people of India, who as one of the world’s emerging economies, don’t look back particularly fondly at colonialism.

And as Nikita Sud, Associate Professor of Development Studies at the University of Oxford, says: 'Colonialism is by definition an exploitative process and the UK-India version is no different’.

It’s a good point. Would Germany ever pop along to France and say, ‘Hey, remember the Nazis? Well here are some Volkswagens’.

Nein, nein, nein they would not. So why can’t British politicians just shut up about the Empire?

Sud says that although English is the common tongue, Britain is just not talking India’s language right now.

According to Sud the coverage of this event in India and the UK is very different.

She says: ‘The UK is talking about trade partnerships and a renewed relationship with the Commonwealth’.

‘India on the other hand is saying - What's in this for us? Is the Common Market shutting down, should we be moving our capital elsewhere?’

Sud adds: ‘India does not owe a friendly relationship to the UK because of colonialism.

India wants the human terms of their relationship with Britain to improve

There is an assumption in UK diplomacy that they can count on the Commonwealth, but why should that be so?

‘There might be some cultural affinity but we're living in the 21st century. India trades with the UK because it’s profitable and because of the Euro gateway, not because the UK is a former colonial master’.

According to Sud, what matters most to India is firstly whether or not Britain is a good place in which to invest, but perhaps more importantly, are Indian people welcome? What about students?

The word that keeps on coming up during our conversation - Visas.

‘One thing that has barely been mentioned on the UK side of the issue, but is regularly mentioned in India, is migration and visas.

Trade deals happen in a context of soft diplomacy and confidence building.

‘For India to have a post-Brexit relationship with Britain there would need to be much better treatment of Indians seeking to work in the UK.

‘Visas are too expensive. It is cheaper and easier for the Chinese to come to the UK than Indians, and that is reflected in student figures. Indian students coming to the UK have fallen over the last 5-7 years’.

India wants the human terms of their relationship with Britain to improve. And they've got every right to make these demands.

But by trying to forge a relationship with India, Theresa May is risking being accused of the old adage - robbing Peter, to pay Paul.

India simply doesn't need a trade relationship with the UK. It will take one if offered but what it really wants is better terms for its people.

Those terms include cheaper and easier access for students, a significantly lower salary bar set for skilled workers (at present its £35k), and greater ease for those already working here to bring their families back and forth.

It looks like there will be no talk about trade deals without another conversation about the movement of people.

If, as Ruchir Sharma Head of Emerging Markets at Morgan Stanley suggests, economic growth is built almost entirely on population increase, then this might not be a bad thing.