No compromise with farmers’ interests: Kewal Singh Dhillon on India-US trade deal

Kewal Singh Dhillon, a senior leader who has been vocal about the impact of the India-US trade deal on agriculture, said in a statement that the central government has repeatedly clarified that paddy, wheat, pulses, milk and other agricultural products will be kept completely outside the ambit of the proposed trade agreement. This assurance is meant to guarantee that farmers’ livelihoods will not be jeopardised by any liberalisation of the deal. The trade negotiations between India and the United States have been ongoing for several months, with officials seeking to deepen economic ties while also addressing concerns about market access for both countries. The proposed pact has drawn attention from various sectors, especially agriculture, where farmers have long feared that reduced tariffs could lead to an influx of cheaper imports and volatile market prices. In the statement, Dhillon emphasized that the exclusion of staple crops such as paddy and wheat reflects a commitment to keep food security and farmer income stable. He noted that the government’s approach aims to ensure that any benefits from the trade deal are pursued without compromising the core interests of those who depend on farming for their income. While the full text of the agreement has not been released, the repeated clarification signals a deliberate policy stance. Observers point out that the agriculture sector contributes significantly to India’s rural economy and employment. By keeping key farm commodities out of the trade deal, the government hopes to avoid price shocks that could affect smallholders. At the same time, the administration continues to explore opportunities in non-agricultural areas of the agreement, such as technology, services and manufacturing, which may offer new export prospects. The clarification also underscores the political sensitivity of farm issues in the region. Farmers’ organisations have been closely monitoring the negotiations, and any perceived threat to their interests could trigger public backlash. Dhillon’s statement, therefore, serves both as a reassurance to the farming community and as a signal to policymakers that the government remains attentive to their concerns. Although the specifics of the trade deal remain under discussion, the government’s decision to protect paddy, wheat, pulses, milk and related products indicates a cautious stance. It suggests that the final agreement may include safeguards for agricultural producers, even as it pursues broader economic integration with the United States. The statement by Dhillon highlights the central role that farmers play in the national discourse on trade. By explicitly stating that these essential commodities will remain outside the deal, the government seeks to balance the pursuit of international trade benefits with the responsibility to safeguard the economic well-being of the country’s agricultural workforce. The government has also indicated that it will continue to engage with farmer representatives during the negotiation process, ensuring that their feedback shapes the final terms of the agreement. This dialogue is seen as essential for maintaining trust between the administration and the agricultural community, especially in states where farming remains the primary source of employment. Industry analysts suggest that while the exclusion of these commodities may limit immediate market access for Indian exporters, it could also prevent price undercutting that would otherwise harm domestic producers. The balance struck by the government may therefore influence the overall attractiveness of the trade deal for other sectors. As the negotiations progress, the stance taken by the government on agricultural protection will likely be a key factor in determining the public reception of the final pact, with stakeholders watching closely for any adjustments that might affect farm incomes.

Source: Hindustan Times