Farmers' Forum Criticises India's Claims on US Trade Deal Tariffs

A major farmers' organisation, the Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh (RKM), has raised concerns over the Indian government's narrative regarding the trade deal with the United States, specifically challenging claims of agricultural benefits. RKM's National Coordinator, KV Biju, addressed the issue, asserting that claims of an 18% tariff, which the government presents as an achievement, are misleading.

Biju referred to statements made by US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who praised former US President Donald Trump's support for American farmers. He alleged that while India has agreed to import agricultural products, there is a contradiction in the remarks made by Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, who asserts that the deal is beneficial for Indian farmers in comparison to neighbouring countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The farmers' group contends that the government's assertions lack full disclosure, potentially hiding details that could be “politically and economically damaging.” They accuse the negotiation process of being conducted in secrecy. Biju challenges the notion that India stands to gain from the deal, particularly considering that tariffs in Pakistan and Bangladesh are already higher at 19%. He pointed out that Bangladesh has secured agreements with the US that allow for zero import duty on several products, including textiles.

The RKM statement highlighted that Goyal's failure to explain how Indian producers could compete with neighbouring countries—who have a production cost approximately 30% lower and benefit from zero tariffs—raises serious questions. Furthermore, the farmers’ forum noted that India has not been granted Most Favoured Nation status, nor have import duties been reduced to 10%. Without addressing these major disadvantages, the claims about competitive advantages are seen as unfounded.

The RKM's statement also criticised organisations like Swadeshi Jagran Manch and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh for their current support of the trade deal, labelling it an anti-national stance that seems driven by political ambitions rather than genuine concern for farmers or national interests.

Concerns were also voiced regarding India's long-standing opposition to US agricultural subsidies at the World Trade Organization. Allowing the import of subsidised agricultural products from the US was described as a “betrayal” of countries that have supported India’s stance against such practices.

Additionally, Biju contested Goyal's assertion that “when a processed item is imported, the GM effects are no longer there,” accusing him of attempting to legitimise the importation of genetically modified products through misleading terminology. He argued that products derived from genetically modified (GM) crops, such as soybean oil and dried distillers’ grains, should be subject to rigorous public debate and regulatory oversight, which is lacking in the current context. RKM perceives allowing these products to enter India without transparency as a significant risk to agricultural integrity and public health scrutiny.