Claims that US deal will not just hurt economically but severe India’s relationship with its own past – and future

Prayagraj: “In India, agriculture is not an “abstract” sector, waiting to be liberalised. It is an emotionally-connected and fragile ecosystem sustained by collective memory, social bonds and narrow margins of hope. For farmers, their fields are as precious as the birth of a son. Oxen, cows and buffaloes are not merely sources of sustenance; they are symbols of dignity, continuity and pride. This stands in sharp contrast to American agriculture, which is built on scale, heavy subsidies, advanced technology and corporate modes of organisation. Indian agriculture, in contrast, rests on small landholdings, unpaid family labour, seasonal uncertainty and cultural continuity,” said Congress leader Shekhar Bahuguna while addressing a presser held at a hotel on Wednesday.

“Opening India’s market to farm produce from the United States, without robust safeguards for domestic farmers, is not ‘competition’. It is an uneven contest between an industrial system and a survival economy. And it could well signal the beginning of the end of India’s cultural and civilisational threads, woven around agriculture. In the United States, agriculture is primarily a source of income and profit for large corporations and business houses that enjoy heavy clout within the governance system. In India, agriculture denotes identity, culture and social continuity. In the United States, it is largely another means to generate income and maximise profit. Unlike Indian farmers, American farmers do not worship their oxen and cows, nor do they celebrate harvest as a civilisation ritual. Their cattle wealth is destined to become steak, meatball and bacon – commodities that join the global supply chains, but little else. Seen purely through an Indian agriculturist’s lens, powerful corporations and business houses appear to have inspired US President Donald Trump’s decision to push for an agricultural trade deal with an India still mired in rural poverty, inequality and stark disparities,” he added.

“When subsidised American produce enters Indian markets, price signals are bound to collapse. For a small farmer, even a modest price dip can determine whether a daughter or son goes to school, or whether a loan is rolled over once again. Such realities rarely find space in trade negotiations. The US-India trade deal could wreak havoc on the country’s dairy sector too. India’s dairy economy is decentralised, household-based and a part of everyday rural life. One or two heads of cattle often provide a steady income and source of milk protein, especially when rainfall fails. In village homes, money earned from milk and curd pays for medicines, school fees and groceries. American dairy, by contrast, is industrial, export-oriented and heavily subsidised. Opening India’s dairy sector to such imports would not merely disrupt a market; it would unsettle millions of rural households. It would collide head-on with cultural practices and ethical norms that Indian farmers and consumers still hold dear,” he asserted.

He also claimed that India has consistently argued on international platforms that agriculture in developing countries cannot be treated like any other tradable commodity. Opening its own market under pressure from the United States would weaken that long-held position, diminishing India’s credibility and authority, particularly in the eyes of its South Asian neighbours. Domestically, such a move could provoke strong political backlash. Agriculture is not peripheral to Indian democracy; it lies at the very heart of its anxieties, mobilisations and aspirations.

Congress leader Shekhar Bahuguna prior to signing off, offers a humble suggestion to India’s policy dispensation. This is not an argument against trade, per se. But if India chooses to engage the United States on agriculture, it must protect dairy unequivocally, retain tariff safeguards for vulnerable crops and invest substantially in farmer resilience before opening markets. “Most importantly, policymakers must recognise that small farmers are citizens first, and entitled to protection from the governments they elect, and producers second,” he concluded.