While the Modi government hails closer ties with Washington as a diplomatic triumph, the emerging India–US trade arrangement exposes a stark and dangerous imbalance that risks sacrificing Indian farmers and economic sovereignty at the altar of unequal partnership.
India’s growing closeness with the United States is being celebrated as a strategic masterstroke, but beneath the surface of diplomatic warmth lies a deeply troubling trade reality that demands urgent scrutiny. The so-called India–US agreement, particularly in the agricultural and allied sectors, raises a fundamental question: who benefits, and who pays the price? When reports and policy outcomes suggest that American products are entering Indian markets at close to zero duty while Indian exports continue to face tariffs as high as 18 per cent in the US, it is no longer a matter of technical trade adjustments. It becomes a question of national economic judgment and political accountability.
Trade is not charity; it is negotiation. Yet India appears to be negotiating from a position of unnecessary surrender. The United States is among the most protectionist agricultural economies in the world, shielding its farmers through enormous subsidies, insurance guarantees, and state-backed logistics under successive Farm Bills. These subsidies artificially lower production costs, allowing US agricultural goods to be dumped in foreign markets at prices no Indian farmer can realistically match. When such products are allowed into India with negligible import duties, the playing field is not level it is tilted brutally against domestic producers. Meanwhile, Indian agricultural and processed food exports continue to face steep tariffs, restrictive quotas, and complex non-tariff barriers in the US market, effectively choking India’s competitiveness. This is not free trade; it is enforced imbalance.
The immediate and most severe impact of this asymmetry will be borne by Indian farmers, especially small and marginal cultivators who form the backbone of the rural economy. Cheaper imports depress domestic prices, making even government-declared MSPs irrelevant in real market conditions. Once prices crash, farmers are left with unsold produce, rising debt, and shrinking incomes. This is not a theoretical concern it has already happened in sectors like edible oils, pulses, fruits, and dairy substitutes. Every surge in imports has translated into distress at home, and every assurance of “long-term gains” has come too late for those pushed into losses and despair. Opening Indian markets without iron-clad safeguards is nothing short of economic negligence.
What makes this situation even more disturbing is the contradiction it exposes within the Modi government’s own ideological framework. Atmanirbhar Bharat was projected as a decisive shift toward self-reliance, domestic manufacturing, and protection of Indian producers. Yet the current trajectory of trade policy suggests the opposite: increasing dependence on foreign supply chains and growing vulnerability of local producers. The same government that withdrew controversial farm laws after nationwide protests is now, quietly and without public debate, opening Indian agriculture to foreign agribusiness interests. This backdoor liberalization, executed through international agreements rather than domestic legislation, bypasses democratic scrutiny while achieving the very outcomes farmers resisted.
The justification offered, implicitly or explicitly, is strategic necessity. India, it is argued, must make economic concessions to cement geopolitical alignment with Washington. But strategic partnership should never require economic self-harm. No serious global power sacrifices its core livelihood sectors to please an ally. The US itself does not do so. It refuses to reduce farm subsidies, resists opening its markets meaningfully, and aggressively defends domestic interests even while demanding openness from others. If India is expected to accept unequal terms simply because it seeks strategic proximity, then the relationship is not one of equals. It is transactional, and India is paying far more than it receives.
The real danger lies in the fine print of such agreements, where long-term consequences are quietly locked in. Tariff reductions may begin modestly but expand through review clauses. Standards harmonization often favours advanced economies and multinational corporations, pushing smaller domestic producers out. Dispute resolution mechanisms can limit a country’s ability to reverse harmful policies once damage becomes visible. These are not abstract risks; they are structural traps that have ensnared many developing economies before. Once committed, retreat becomes diplomatically costly and economically disruptive, leaving governments with little room to correct mistakes.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this entire episode is the absence of public and parliamentary debate. Decisions affecting millions of farmers and the country’s food security are being taken without transparent disclosures, impact assessments, or meaningful consultation. When citizens are asked to trust the process without being shown the terms, suspicion is not cynicism it is common sense. A confident government explains its choices. A hesitant one avoids questions. Silence, in this context, is not strategy; it is evasion.
India does not need protectionism, but it desperately needs fairness. Trade agreements must be reciprocal, calibrated, and rooted in domestic economic realities. If Indian exports face high duties while foreign goods enter freely, the agreement is flawed at its core. Strategic alignment should strengthen a nation, not hollow out its rural economy. If farmers become collateral damage in global power politics, the cost will not only be economic it will be social and political, echoing across villages, markets, and elections.
The Modi government must confront this reality honestly. Is Atmanirbhar Bharat a genuine policy direction or merely a slogan for speeches? Is India negotiating as a sovereign power or behaving like a market desperate for approval? And most importantly, how many more concessions will be made before the government admits that unequal trade is not diplomacy, but displacement? Because if this path continues unchecked, the suffering of Indian farmers will not be an unintended consequence it will be a predictable outcome of deliberate choices.