The deal India's farmers don't trust

The phrase has become strangely familiar. For years, Indian and American officials have repeatedly declared that a bilateral trade agreement is “very, very close”. Similar expressions — “almost finalised”, “99 per cent complete”, or “imminent” — have surfaced at regular intervals, creating an impression that the long-awaited Indo-US trade pact is always just around the corner.

Ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Houston for the 'Howdy Modi' event in 2019, officials suggested that a breakthrough was imminent. Again, in February, both Washington and New Delhi announced a framework for an interim trade agreement. Today, the same language has returned. High-level negotiations in New Delhi have entered what officials describe as a decisive phase, with both sides projecting optimism.

Yet, a few kilometres from the negotiating rooms, a very different conversation is unfolding.

At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, farmers affiliated with the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) recently gathered to protest the proposed trade agreement. Their message was blunt: opening India’s agricultural markets to American products could devastate domestic farming.

“If agricultural products from the United States enter India without adequate import duties, Indian agriculture will be destroyed,” farmer leaders warned during the protest.

Another faction of the Samyukt Kisan Morcha has also opposed the agreement and threatened a nationwide agitation. Veteran farmer leader Dr Sunilam has declared that the day the agreement is signed, protests would begin the very next day. Bharatiya Kisan Union leader Rakesh Tikait has appealed to farmers to remain organised and prepared for another major struggle.

The anxiety is not confined to grain-growing regions. Apple growers from Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Uttarakhand have jointly appealed to PM Modi to ensure that no provision in the trade agreement harms domestic horticulture. The Hill States Horticulture Forum has warned that any substantial increase in fruit imports due to tariff reductions could severely affect the rural economy of the Himalayan states.

What makes these concerns significant is that they are not entirely based on speculation.

Though the full text of the proposed agreement remains confidential, several official statements and policy documents have already offered clues about its possible direction. A fact sheet released by the US Mission in India in February stated that India had agreed to reduce or eliminate tariffs on several American agricultural products, including fruits, tree nuts, and soybean oil. It also mentioned India’s willingness to significantly expand purchases of American energy, technology, and aircraft.

Another reported concession involves imports of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), a by-product of ethanol production used as animal feed. While the poultry industry may benefit from cheaper feed ingredients, domestic oilseed processors and soybean farmers fear adverse consequences.

India already faces excess supplies of DDGS and weakening demand for soymeal. Increased imports could further depress oilseed prices, hurting millions of soybean cultivators, particularly in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Farmers argue that these developments may force additional shifts away from oilseed cultivation toward crops such as corn and rice.

What has intensified suspicion among farm organizations is the absence of clear reassurances from the government. Despite widespread reports regarding tariff concessions and agricultural imports, no senior official has explicitly stated that these concerns are unfounded or that farmers’ interests will remain fully protected.

The fundamental fear stems from the enormous structural differences between Indian and American agriculture.

The average Indian farmer cultivates less than three acres of land, often relying on family labour and limited mechanisation. In contrast, American farms average hundreds of acres and employ advanced technologies, large-scale mechanisation, and extensive government support.

American agriculture receives substantial subsidies through successive Farm Bills worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Indian farmers fear that reducing import duties could allow heavily subsidised American commodities to enter the domestic market at prices local producers cannot match.

This fear extends to several specific sectors.

Soybean farmers worry about cheaper imports of American soybean oil. Cotton growers are concerned about increasing imports of foreign cotton at a time when input costs have risen sharply. Apple growers fear competition from imported fruits, particularly Washington apples, which could undercut domestic orchardists.

Even dairy and poultry, sectors that provide supplementary income to millions of rural households, remain sensitive issues. Though the government has repeatedly maintained that dairy and poultry are not part of the negotiations, farmers remain sceptical.

The concern is not merely about imports but also about what are known as “non-tariff barriers” — sanitary standards, restrictions on genetically modified products, and food safety regulations. Farmer organisations fear that India may gradually dilute these protections to satisfy American demands for greater market access.

Meanwhile, recent government decisions have added to the apprehension. The Centre has suspended import duties on cotton for five months, from June to October. Farmer organisations argue that this move could result in imports of nearly 40 lakh bales at a time when domestic cotton sowing is already underway and the new crop is expected to arrive between October and December.

Critics ask whether opening the door to cotton imports aligns with the government’s recently announced Cotton Productivity Mission.

Trade agreements often promise broader economic gains, improved market access, and strategic partnerships. The proposed Indo-US deal may well deliver some of those benefits. But for millions of Indian farmers, the issue is far more immediate.

Their concern is not about geopolitics or diplomatic success. It is about prices, livelihoods, and survival.

As negotiations approach their final stage, the silence surrounding agriculture may prove as consequential as the agreement itself. Unless the government directly addresses these anxieties and clearly explains the safeguards being built into the deal, India’s fields may become the next battleground in the country’s trade diplomacy.