India’s interim trade agreement with the United States has ignited widespread backlash from farmers’ organizations, turning agriculture into a major flashpoint just as New Delhi seeks closer alignment with Washington. The deal, finalized last week, is being criticized by unions that accuse the government of sacrificing domestic agriculture to secure broader economic and geopolitical gains.
The agriculture sector supports the livelihoods of roughly 40% of India’s population, making any move to open the market politically sensitive in the country of more than 1.4 billion people. The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), a coalition of 40 farmers unions, has announced plans for nationwide protests, including demonstrations at the village level and participation in a general strike. In a statement issued over the weekend, the group described the agreement as a “total surrender” of Indian agriculture and called for the resignation of Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, who is overseeing the negotiations.
According to reporting by Nikkei Asia, protest leaders have pledged demonstrations across the country, with symbolic burnings of effigies of U.S. President Donald Trump to highlight their anger over the proposed tariff concessions and expanded market access for American farm goods.
Under the joint framework, India has agreed to eliminate or reduce tariffs on a wide range of U.S. industrial and agricultural products, including dried distillers’ grains used for animal feed, red sorghum, tree nuts, fruits, soybean oil, wine and spirits, along with other items yet to be specified. India also committed to addressing longstanding non-tariff barriers affecting U.S. agricultural exports, positioning the interim pact as a steppingstone toward a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement expected to be finalized as early as March.
In exchange, the United States would reduce tariffs on about 55% of Indian exports to roughly 18%, down from elevated levels of around 50%. While officials in New Delhi frame the deal as a pathway to expanded trade and investment, farmers’ groups argue that India’s concessions are broader and could expose domestic producers to volatile global competition without adequate safeguards.
The resistance echoes the massive protests that forced the repeal of India’s farm laws in 2021. Growers of apples and cotton in states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh have warned that cheaper imports could undercut domestic prices and erode already thin profit margins. SKM leader Abhimanyu Kohad told Nikkei Asia that if imported products are sold below India’s minimum support price, local farmers could struggle to find buyers.
Kohad pointed to apple-growing regions like Himachal Pradesh, where producers already face stiff competition from low-priced imports from countries such as Iran. An influx of U.S. apples, he said, would further shrink their market share, adding that Indian farmers lack the financial backing needed to compete with heavily subsidized American agriculture.
Analysts say the disparity in government support is a core concern. Kohad estimated that Indian farmers receive about $155 annually in direct or indirect aid, while U.S. farmers benefit from subsidies that can reach tens of thousands of dollars each year. He cited a U.S. federal farm support program in December 2025 that provided direct cash transfers to farmers, allowing them to absorb losses and sell produce at lower prices.
Food and agricultural policy expert Devinder Sharma, based in Chandigarh, shared similar concerns in comments to Nikkei Asia, noting that the U.S. has long viewed India as one of the largest potential markets for its agricultural exports. Sharma warned that farmers remain unclear about how the agreement will affect them and argued that opening markets without addressing structural distress in Indian agriculture could carry significant social and economic consequences.
The unfolding dispute highlights the delicate balance India faces as it pursues deeper global trade partnerships while trying to shield a vast rural population from market shocks, setting the stage for a renewed confrontation between economic liberalization and agrarian stability.
