If you look at the evidence of impacts of agreements—not specifically the India agreement because I haven't studied that one specifically—if you look at the vast literature of the impact of liberalizing trade, often it does shift employment from some firms to other firms. Typically, smaller, less productive firms may close and those jobs may disappear, and larger, more productive firms will find markets in places like India or the foreign market and those firms will expand. So there would be a shifting of employment, but not a net effect.
Again, if you look at the Canada–U.S. agreement in NAFTA, it didn't affect our unemployment rate. It did contribute to a decline in employment in manufacturing, but those jobs later became part of other manufacturing sectors or the service sector. So some firms expanded, some firms contracted, and the net effect was pretty much a wash.
That's why I say that an agreement with India...you're right, it will generate employment and trade opportunities for some firms, and for other firms it may go in the other direction.