Why Central govt should convince nation about Indo-US trade pact
If finalising the India-US trade deal interim framework was tough and time-consuming, making it acceptable in the country will be an equally herculean task. The Congress has already termed the framework as “surrender.” It also found Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal’s comments on agri-imports “too clever by half.” The joint statement by the two nations mentions a list of products on which India would eliminate or reduce tariffs, including “additional products.” Congress MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of opacity, saying “that something is being hidden.”
Another senior Congress leader P Chidambaram said, “The framework deal is heavily tilted in favour of the US, and the asymmetry is obvious.” Then there are farmers’ organisations and their leaders, who are loud and strong; four years ago, they had forced the Narendra Modi government to withdraw the three excellent laws that would have immensely helped peasants across the country. These leaders have vested interests in the status quo; they will never allow any meaningful reform or change in the farm policy.
Their reaction is on expected lines—against the deal. “We are worried about the deal, as it would hurt Indian farmers, who are far more vulnerable than their American counterparts,” said senior farmers’ leader Rakesh Tikait. Therefore, a federation of over 100 farm groups, under the banner of Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), will protest on Thursday . Their grouse is simple: the deal could decrease domestic prices and hurt farm incomes. The government and its supporters can argue that lower farm prices would help the poor, even in the countryside where a large number of landless people live. Reasoned and face-based arguments do carry weight. Trade policy in India has too often been discussed in technocratic jargon.
What is needed now is neither sentimentalism nor bravado, but a sober, transparent, and easily comprehensible conversation about costs, benefits and trade-offs. The government must explain clearly what the interim framework does and does not do. Which agricultural products are involved? What safeguards are in place to prevent import surges? How will vulnerable farmers be protected during the transition? What complementary reforms—in storage, logistics, market access, and income support—are being planned to improve farm resilience?
Without credible answers to these questions, suspicion and resistance will only deepen. At the same time, it must be said plainly that backing out of the deal is not a realistic option. Walking away would damage India’s credibility as a negotiating partner and undermine its broader strategic and economic interests. The India–US relationship today is not merely transactional but anchored in shared concerns about supply-chain security, technology, defence and the balance of power in Asia. A retreat, under domestic pressure, would send the wrong signal to allies and investors alike.
That does not mean the government should bulldoze its way through dissent. If the government is serious about making the trade deal politically and socially sustainable, it must pair openness with empathy. This means strengthening safety nets for farmers, investing in productivity-enhancing reforms, and gradually shifting the focus from price support to income support. It also means engaging critics in good faith rather than dismissing all opposition as obstructionist. The government must move forward—not blindly, not arrogantly, but decisively—armed with reason, transparency and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.