Theresa May came to India for her first bilateral meeting outside of Europe arguing that she wanted to lay the groundwork for a significant post-Brexit trade deal.

India, with its historic and cultural ties to Britain, is exactly the sort of country that “hello world” Brexiters claimed the UK could do business with after leaving the European Union. It’s important to note, however, that the whole of the EU was unable to secure a similar agreement with this Asian giant.

Why? There were a number of stumbling blocks when it came to access into markets, but one important factor was unquestionably linked to migration. India wanted more of its skilled professionals to be able to enter EU countries on six-month visas.

Vince Cable, who was the Liberal Democrat business secretary in the coalition, said May was unwilling to budge on the issue while at the Home Office. But given that leave campaigners suggested Commonwealth nationals could get a better deal on migration after leaving the EU, could May have changed her mind?

The signs in India suggest not. On the way over to the trade summit, May argued that the visa system for Indian nationals was sufficient, saying this was a more generous deal than for Americans, Chinese and Australians. The clear implication was there would be no increase in numbers.

And her language in the statement after a bilateral meeting with India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, calling for help to return Indians who had no right to remain in Britain, felt like an uncompromising stance on migration. Even May’s offer to consider a more liberal visa regime was all about process (the application system, and getting through British airports) rather than in any way linked to the criteria applied to cases.

The registered traveller scheme was similarly about experience rather than the numbers of people able to come. All of which may be an understandable political position in the face of unrest about immigration in the UK. May thinks British voters aren’t ready to see a wave of new migration from non-EU countries, never mind what Brexit campaigners promised in the referendum.

But it leaves Britain in a difficult position when it comes to the possibility of a future trade relationship with a country such as India. Already there is anger in India over a decision last week to toughen up the requirements for IT workers coming to Britain.

A decision to bring in a higher salary threshold for those workers barely made the papers in the UK but was headline news in India. And before that there was unease over a decision to limit how long graduates can remain in Britain, in a move that caused a significant cut in the number of Indian students in the UK.

After May’s comments on returning Indians who “have no right” to remain in Britain, Indian journalists huddled together comparing notes, asking whether she had really used those words. They found the language startling, with one – Priyanka Tikoo, editor and bureau chief of the Press Trust of India – saying it felt as though May wanted India to hand over trade liberalisation in return for little else. She said the Delhi press pack had expected to hear something warmer, and were surprised by what felt like a somewhat hostile tone.

Downing Street pointed out that the idea of supporting Britain on returns was an issue agreed between both governments, and said India had been happy to sign up. Delhi had also welcomed other moves to make the visa process easier.

No 10 also argued that trade deals were far more complex than a simple trade-off between economic access and migration, with India also seeking assurances over services, technology and skills sharing.

But the backlash from some business voices over the issue underlined the complexity of the task ahead. India would love to sign up to a trade agreement with the UK, but only if it is in its economic and social interest. Like the EU example before, the challenges facing Britain in India underline the mountain May has to climb as she attempts to reach the opportunities of a post-Brexit world. Free movement in return for trade isn’t a concept that is limited to the European project that British voters rejected in June.

