The crux of recent trade discussion between India and US, as understood by us,
US’s Expectation:
- Greater access for American agricultural and dairy products to the Indian market
- Lower tariffs and acceptance of GM products
- Opening of sensitive sectors like dairy, poultry, corn, soybeans, and wheat
India’s position:
- Protection of small farmers and their livelihoods
- Maintaining tariffs and restrictions, especially on GM crops and dairy
- Food security and sovereignty prioritization
As Letskheti, we wholeheartedly endorse this position. At the heart of these proposed trade deals. This isn't merely a matter of economics or trade balance; it is a question of India's soul, its sovereignty, and the future of millions.
The stance is not just a negotiating tactic—it is a non-negotiable line of defence for the Indian agricultural sector, and here’s why the pressure must be maintained.1
1. The Immense Vulnerability of the Indian Farmer
The "stress" on farmers, if we say is an understatement. The reality is a persistent crisis:
- Small Landholdings: Over 86% of Indian farmers are small and marginal, with less than two hectares of land. They are not large-scale commercial enterprises; they are families practicing subsistence farming.
- Debt and Rising Costs: They are already crushed by rising input costs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides), unpredictable weather due to climate change, and volatile market prices.
- Lack of a Safety Net: Despite government schemes, the social and economic safety net is thin. A single crop failure can lead to insurmountable debt.
Allowing a flood of heavily subsidized American agricultural products would not be "competition." It would be an extinction-level event for these small farmers. They cannot possibly compete with the economies of scale and massive government subsidies that underpin US industrial agriculture.
2. Food Security is National Security
India’s prioritization of food security and sovereignty is a lesson learned from a painful history of famines under colonial rule. To be self-sufficient in food is a cornerstone of our national independence.
- Dependency Risk: Opening our markets for staples like wheat, corn, and soybeans would create a dangerous dependency on foreign nations for our basic food needs. Global supply chains are fragile, and geopolitical tensions can turn food into a weapon.
- Price Volatility: Ceding control of our food supply to international market forces would expose our 1.4 billion people to extreme price shocks, threatening the stability of the entire nation.
3. The Unique Role of Dairy and Poultry
The American demand to open our dairy and poultry sectors ignores their unique socio-economic role in India.
- Dairy as a Lifeline: For millions of rural families, especially women, owning one or two cows or buffaloes is not a business—it's a critical source of supplementary income and nutrition. It's the foundation of many cooperative movements that has empowered millions. Industrial-scale US dairy imports would decimate this decentralized, livelihood-generating model.
- Poultry: Similarly, backyard poultry is a key source of income for the rural poor.
4. The Pandora's Box of GM Crops
The push for Genetically Modified (GM) crops is a major red flag. India's caution is well-founded:
- Biodiversity Threat: India is a center of immense agrobiodiversity. Widespread adoption of GM crops could contaminate native varieties, leading to an irreversible loss of our genetic heritage.
- Corporate Control: It would shift control of our seed supply from farmers to a handful of multinational corporations, creating a new form of technological dependency.
- Health and Environmental Concerns: The long-term impact of GM crops on soil health, ecosystems, and human health remains a subject of intense debate. India is right to exercise the precautionary principle.
How This Standoff Could Affect American Prices
While it seems like protecting Indian farmers would only impact India, the interconnected global economy means these decisions can create ripple effects that reach the American consumer's wallet.
Our position is not protectionism for the sake of it; it is strategic protection of the nation's most vital and vulnerable sector. The demands for market access, lower tariffs, and acceptance of GM products are viewed from a lens of corporate profit. India’s stance, correctly, is viewed from a lens of human lives, national sovereignty, and long-term resilience.
For the Indian agricultural sector, the stress is already at a breaking point. These trade demands are not an opportunity for growth; they are an existential threat. Therefore, the answer must remain a firm and resolute no. We stand with India's farmers.