US–India Trade Deal: A New Trap for Indian Farmers?

US India trade deal Indian farmers: When world leaders shake hands over trade agreements in air-conditioned conference halls, the applause rarely reaches the fields. It does not reach the farmer standing beside a tube well in Bathinda, calculating how much diesel he will need before the next irrigation. It does not reach the small landholder in Karnal who is waiting for the mandi rate of his crop. It does not reach the family in Sangrur that has already taken another loan for fertiliser, seeds and labour.

But the consequences of those agreements eventually arrive in the villages. They arrive through cheaper imports, changing prices, pressure on local crops, and a slow shift in who controls the food system. The latest United States–India trade framework is being presented as a diplomatic achievement and an economic opportunity. On paper, it reduces tariffs, improves market access and promises “reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade.” Yet for the farmers of Punjab and Haryana, especially those already trapped between rising input costs, shrinking water tables and uncertain markets, the agreement raises a much harder question: who will bear the cost of this so-called global opportunity?

This is not a question of opposing trade. India cannot isolate itself from the world economy, and neither can its farmers. The real issue is whether trade is being negotiated with a clear understanding of Indian agriculture, regional ecology and the fragile economics of small and marginal farmers. In Punjab and Haryana, farming is not simply a business. It is a way of life, a source of identity, and often the only livelihood several generations have known. If a trade deal weakens the security of these farmers without giving them an alternative safety net, then it is not merely an economic policy. It becomes a social and political risk.

A Deal That Looks Different From the Ground

In February 2026, US India trade deal announced a framework for an Interim Agreement on reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade. The framework states that India will eliminate or reduce tariffs on a wide range of American food and agricultural products, including dried distillers’ grains with solubles, known as DDGS, red sorghum for animal feed, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits.

At the same time, the United States reduced its reciprocal tariff on Indian goods from 25 per cent to 18 per cent. This is important to understand clearly. The 18 per cent figure is not a tariff that India has imposed on American agricultural goods. It is the tariff the United States has applied to Indian exports. In popular discussion, this detail often gets mixed up, and that confusion itself shows why trade policy needs to be explained honestly rather than through slogans.

The Indian government has said that the concessions on agricultural products are “limited and calibrated,” offered through quota-based mechanisms, phased concessions and partial duty reductions. According to the Ministry of External Affairs, these quotas are within existing import levels so that adverse effects on domestic farmers can be avoided. This is an important clarification. The deal does not completely throw open India’s agricultural market overnight. Soybean oil and DDGS, for example, are expected to be handled through tariff-rate quotas rather than unrestricted imports.

But the concern remains valid. A quota today can become a larger quota tomorrow. A phased reduction can become a permanent reduction. A temporary commercial adjustment can become a long-term structural dependence. Farmers do not live in the language of trade frameworks. They live in the reality of prices, procurement, debt and competition. And it is in that reality that the danger lies.

Two Farmers, Two Different Worlds

To understand why this deal has created anxiety in rural Punjab and Haryana, one must first understand the unequal contest between the American farmer and the Indian farmer.

The American farmer often operates on a very different scale. Large farms, advanced machinery, precision agriculture, storage infrastructure, credit systems and strong institutional support create a level of protection that is difficult for an ordinary Indian farmer to match. More importantly, the American state does not leave its farmers alone when prices fall or disasters strike.

In 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture announced the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program, under which up to $10 billion in direct payments were to be issued to eligible producers for the 2024 crop year. This was not a small relief measure. It was a massive direct intervention designed to protect American producers from economic shocks.

The support did not stop there. In October 2026, the USDA announced record payments of $13.8 billion for the 2025 crop year under the Price Loss Coverage programme. The payments covered crops including wheat, soybean, rice, corn and several pulses. In other words, when American farmers face low prices, the American government steps in with billions of dollars.

Now compare this with the Punjabi or Haryanvi farmer. Many operate on small or fragmented holdings. Their production system is heavily dependent on the paddy-wheat cycle. Their costs keep rising diesel, electricity, seeds, fertiliser, pesticides, labour, machinery and transport. Their main institutional protection is the Minimum Support Price system, but that protection is largely limited to wheat and paddy.

If a farmer in Punjab wants to shift to maize, pulses, oilseeds, vegetables or other alternative crops, the first question is not whether the crop is ecologically better. The first question is: who will buy it? At what price? Will procurement be assured? Will the farmer be protected if the market crashes?

This is where the asymmetry becomes brutal. The American farmer is protected by the state before entering the market. The Indian farmer is often asked to enter the market first and survive later.

The Paddy-Wheat Trap

Punjab and Haryana are often described as the food bowl of India. This description is deserved. Punjab alone cultivated wheat on 35.16 lakh hectares during 2023-24 and produced 181.76 lakh tonnes, with an average yield of 51.70 quintals per hectare. These numbers reflect decades of public investment, irrigation, high-yielding varieties, fertiliser use and hard work by farmers.

But the same system has created a trap.

For years, agricultural scientists, including experts at Punjab Agricultural University, have warned that continuous rice-wheat monocropping is damaging soil health, exhausting groundwater and making agriculture economically and ecologically unsustainable. The need for crop diversification is not a new idea. It has been repeated in policy documents, university recommendations and farmer meetings for decades.

The logic is simple. Punjab needs to move away from excessive dependence on water-intensive paddy. Farmers need viable alternatives such as maize, pulses, oilseeds, basmati, fruits, vegetables and agro-forestry. But diversification cannot succeed if the farmer is asked to take all the risk.

A farmer who grows paddy knows that procurement is likely. A farmer who grows pulses or oilseeds often does not have the same assurance. If the price falls, there may be no buyer at a remunerative rate. If the crop fails, there may be limited compensation. If the market is dominated by traders or processors, the farmer may have little bargaining power.

This is why the demand for a legally guaranteed MSP for all crops, based on the Swaminathan Commission formula of C2 plus 50 per cent, continues to echo across Punjab and Haryana. Farmers are not asking for charity. They are asking for a legal floor beneath their livelihood.

Water: The Silent Casualty

Behind every discussion of trade, crops and prices lies a quieter crisis: water.

Punjab’s groundwater situation is alarming. Recent assessments have placed the state’s groundwater extraction rate at around 152 per cent, meaning the state is extracting more groundwater than is being naturally recharged. Reports indicate that 72 per cent of Punjab’s 153 blocks fall in the “red zone,” the highest share among Indian states.

Punjab has the highest cropping intensity in India, at 190.3 per cent, and accounts for the highest groundwater extraction in the country. The Indus Basin aquifer beneath Punjab is described as one of the world’s most depleted aquifers.

This is not an abstract environmental issue. It is a livelihood issue. As the water table falls, farmers need deeper borewells, more powerful pumps and more diesel or electricity. Wealthier farmers can often afford deeper tube wells and larger pumping capacity. Smaller farmers cannot. Some are forced to buy water, depend on larger landowners, or abandon cultivation altogether.

The cruel irony is that the paddy-wheat system, which consumes enormous quantities of water, survives partly because it offers assured procurement. The farmer is not irrational. He is responding to the incentives created by policy. If the state guarantees the purchase of paddy and wheat but does not guarantee a secure market for alternatives, the farmer will naturally continue growing paddy and wheat—even when he knows the system is damaging his soil and draining his water.

Trade policy cannot be separated from this reality. If cheaper American soybean oil, feed grains or other agricultural products enter the Indian market in larger volumes, they may indirectly weaken the case for domestic diversification. Why would a farmer grow oilseeds if imported oil becomes cheaper? Why would local feed production survive if imported DDGS floods the poultry and dairy feed market?

The answer cannot be permanent protectionism without reform. But neither can the answer be reckless liberalisation without protecting the farmer.

What Is Actually Being Imported?

US India trade deal Indian farmers  includes several agricultural products, but two deserve special attention: soybean oil and DDGS.

Soybean oil is directly linked to India’s edible oil economy. India already imports a large share of its edible oil requirements. Crude vegetable oils have attracted a combined duty of around 16.5 per cent, including basic customs duty, agricultural infrastructure and development cess, and social welfare cess. Reports have suggested that tariffs on certain American goods, including soybean oil, could be reduced from 50 per cent to 18 per cent under a tariff-rate quota arrangement.

For consumers, cheaper edible oil may appear beneficial. Cooking oil prices affect every household. But for the domestic oilseed farmer, cheaper imports can be devastating. India has repeatedly failed to build a strong domestic oilseed economy because imports often undercut local production. If American soybean oil becomes cheaper, Indian farmers may once again find little incentive to grow soybean, mustard, sunflower or groundnut.

DDGS is a byproduct of ethanol production, mainly from corn. It is used in animal feed, especially for poultry and dairy. On the surface, cheaper feed may help poultry farmers and dairy producers. But it can also affect domestic maize farmers and local feed manufacturers. If imported feed becomes cheaper than locally grown maize or other feed ingredients, the pressure shifts back to the Indian farmer.

This is the hidden chain of global trade. A policy that appears to help one sector can quietly harm another. A cheaper product in the city can become a lower price in the village.

India as a ‘Refining Superpower’: Why Washington is Looking to Reliance

Ground Investigation: The Crumbling Bastion of Malerkotla

The WTO Excuse and the Double Standard

Whenever Indian farmers demand stronger support, they are often told that international trade rules restrict what the government can do. WTO rules, GATT commitments, subsidy caps and “market discipline” are presented as unavoidable limits.

There is some truth in this, but it is only part of the truth.

Under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, domestic support measures are classified into different categories. Trade-distorting support is measured through the Aggregate Measurement of Support, or AMS. For developing countries such as India, the de minimis limit for product-specific and non-product-specific support is generally 10 per cent of the value of production. For developed countries, it is 5 per cent.

But the issue is not simply that WTO rules exist. The issue is how they are interpreted, negotiated and enforced. India has long argued that public stockholding for food security and support to poor farmers should be treated differently from commercial subsidy regimes. The fight over MSP, public stockholding and the peace clause is not merely technical. It is a fight over whether developing countries have the right to protect food security and rural livelihoods.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to provide enormous support to its own farmers. The $10 billion Emergency Commodity Assistance Program and the $13.8 billion in Price Loss Coverage payments are not minor adjustments. They are direct state interventions.

So when Indian farmers are told that they must accept market competition because global rules demand it, while American farmers receive billions in support, the moral contradiction becomes impossible to ignore. The question is not whether America has the right to support its farmers. The question is why the same flexibility is not extended to India’s farmers, whose per-acre incomes, landholdings and institutional support are far weaker.

The Corporate Chain Around the Farmer

The trade deal is only one part of a larger structure. The farmer today does not face merely the market. He faces a chain of corporations, traders, input suppliers, processors and financial institutions.

Commercial seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, machinery and credit are increasingly controlled by large companies. A handful of global firms dominate major segments of the commercial seed and agrochemical market. When a few companies control essential inputs, the farmer’s cost of production rises year after year.

At the time of sowing, the farmer is a customer. He must buy seeds, fertiliser and pesticides at prices set by powerful suppliers. At the time of harvest, he becomes a seller. But now he faces traders, commission agents, processors and corporate buyers who often have greater storage capacity, market information and bargaining power.

This imbalance is at the heart of the farmers’ movement that brought hundreds of thousands of people to the borders of Delhi. The farmers were not protesting only against three farm laws. They were protesting against a future in which the state would retreat, corporations would expand, and the farmer would be left alone to negotiate with powerful private players.

The demand for a legal guarantee of MSP was therefore not an emotional demand. It was a demand for a legal baseline. Without such a baseline, “market freedom” often means freedom for the buyer and insecurity for the seller.

The Human Cost Behind the Statistics

It is easy to discuss trade in percentages, tariffs and quotas. But behind every statistic is a household.

Consider a farmer with five acres in Punjab. He grows paddy in kharif and wheat in rabi. His yield may be good, but his costs are high. He pays for diesel, fertiliser, pesticides, labour and machinery. His tube well goes deeper every few years. His soil needs more inputs. His income depends heavily on procurement and the price he receives at the mandi.

Now imagine that cheaper imported soybean oil enters the market. The consumer may benefit for some time. But the farmer who might have shifted to oilseeds sees no future in that crop. He returns to paddy. His water use remains high. His debt remains. His dependence on two crops remains.

Or consider a dairy farmer in Haryana. Cheaper imported DDGS may reduce feed costs temporarily. But if local maize and feed crops lose value, the rural economy loses another source of income. The dairy farmer may save money on feed, but the maize farmer in the neighbouring village may lose his market.

This is why agricultural policy cannot be judged only by consumer prices. It must be judged by rural incomes, ecological sustainability, employment, food security and regional balance.

Opportunity or Vulnerability?

Supporters of the trade deal argue that India needs access to global markets, cheaper inputs and greater efficiency. They argue that competition will force Indian agriculture to modernise. They point out that India has a large domestic market, growing demand for food and opportunities in exports.

These arguments are not entirely wrong. India does need better storage, processing, logistics, technology and market access. Indian farmers do need alternatives to the paddy-wheat cycle. The country cannot continue to drain its groundwater and subsidise an ecologically damaging system indefinitely.

But modernisation cannot mean abandonment.

If the government wants farmers to diversify, it must guarantee procurement for alternative crops. If it wants farmers to reduce paddy cultivation, it must compensate them for the ecological service they provide by saving water. If it wants Indian agriculture to compete globally, it must first give Indian farmers the same basic protection that American farmers receive.

A trade deal becomes an opportunity only when the domestic farmer is strong enough to benefit from it. It becomes a trap when the domestic farmer is weak, indebted and unprotected.

What the Government Must Answer

Before this agreement moves further, the government must answer a few direct questions.

First, what is the exact volume of soybean oil and DDGS that will be allowed under tariff-rate quotas? Will these quotas increase in the future?

Second, what impact assessment has been done for Punjab, Haryana and other major agricultural states? Has the government studied the effect on oilseed farmers, maize growers, poultry feed producers and dairy farmers?

Third, will the government legally guarantee procurement and remunerative prices for crops beyond wheat and paddy? Without this, diversification will remain a slogan.

Fourth, will the government create a compensation mechanism for farmers who shift away from water-intensive paddy? If the state wants to save groundwater, it must share the cost of saving it.

Fifth, will India use its negotiating space at the WTO to protect public stockholding, food security and farmer support? Or will it continue to accept a global rulebook written largely in the interest of powerful agricultural exporters?

These are not anti-trade questions. These are pro-farmer questions.

The Real Test of the Deal

The real test of any trade agreement is not the photograph of leaders shaking hands. It is not the language of the joint statement. It is not even the percentage of tariff reduction.

The real test is whether the farmer in Punjab and Haryana becomes more secure or more insecure.

If the agreement leads to cheaper imports without a domestic safety net, it will deepen the crisis. If it weakens the incentive to grow oilseeds, pulses and other alternative crops, it will make diversification even harder. If it increases dependence on imported feed and edible oil, it will transfer more economic power away from Indian villages.

But if the government uses this moment to build a stronger domestic agricultural system—assured procurement, legal price protection, water-saving incentives, rural storage, processing units, cooperative marketing and crop diversification—then trade can become an opportunity.

Until then, the fear remains justified.

The American farmer has the state behind him. The Punjabi and Haryanvi farmer is being asked to face the global market with a tube well, a small plot, a loan and a prayer.

That is not a level playing field. That is a trap.

And unless the government answers with legal guarantees, transparent data and real protection for domestic farmers, the true cost of this trade deal will not be paid in Washington or New Delhi. It will be paid in the fields of Punjab and Haryana—in falling water tables, rising debts, broken families and a rural future slowly slipping away.