US waters down language on trade deal document as Indian farmers protest ‘threat to livelihood’
The US has softened the language on a fact sheet of a recently announced trade deal with India amid protests by thousands of farmers who accused the Narendra Modi government of compromising their interests.
US president Donald Trump and Indian prime minister Modi last week announced that the two countries had finalised a long-delayed trade agreement. While details remained limited, Mr Trump said he would cut reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods to 18 per cent from 25 per cent and scrap a separate 25 per cent punitive duty imposed on Delhi over its purchases of Russian oil.
However, the announcement triggered confusion in India among opposition parties, trade experts, and farmer groups, particularly over whether Delhi had agreed to open up its heavily protected agricultural sector to US exports – long considered one of the most contentious sticking points in trade talks.
The original version of the fact sheet released on Monday said India would “eliminate or reduce tariffs” on a wide range of US food and agricultural products, including “certain pulses”, a dietary staple for millions in India that includes lentils and chickpeas. But a revised version removed any reference to pulses.
The shifting language has intensified criticism from opposition lawmakers, who said the government had made too many concessions for the US while failing to provide clarity at home. Initial silence and ambiguity from Delhi over Mr Trump’s claim that India would halt Russian oil purchases further deepened political unease.
In parliament, lawmakers from opposition political parties demanded that the government scrap the trade deal and criticised Mr Modi.
On Thursday, a coalition of major trade unions and farmers’ groups mounted a nationwide strike to protest the deal and said the agreement undermined the interests of farmers, small businesses and workers.
Farmers burned symbolic copies of the trade pact in their fields and at protest meetings, saying the government moved ahead without consulting them.
The one-day strike partially disrupted public services and manufacturing activities, highlighting resistance to the reform agenda set by Mr Modi, leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, and underscoring the political risks of pushing market-oriented policies ahead of key state elections later this year.
Farmers’ unions have repeatedly warned that lowering barriers to American agricultural goods, many of which benefit from heavy subsidies, would threaten the livelihoods of millions of small-scale Indian farmers. Pulses, dairy and other staples have been politically sensitive areas for successive governments.
Union leaders said opening the agricultural sector to US imports would expose Indian farmers to unfair competition.
“Cheap American farm produce will be dumped in India, making it difficult for our farmers and small businesses to compete,” said Amarjeet Kaur, general secretary of All India Trade Union Congress, a prominent union that took part in the strike.
Rakesh Tikait, a prominent farm leader, said: “Protests were held in states including Bihar, Haryana, Odisha, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, where farmers asserted their rights over their land and pledged not to cede their fields to market forces.”
Opposition parties led by Congress lawmakers also staged protests outside the parliament complex, holding placards with slogans such as “Trap Deal” and “US deal will destroy farmers”, and accusing the government of “surrendering” farmers’ and domestic industries’ interest.
