India–US trade deal is too costly for farmers
The Tribune
Context and Editorial Setting
The newspaper presents a “Two Views” format on the India–US trade negotiations, juxtaposing two contrasting but intersecting arguments. One view foregrounds the costs of trade liberalisation for Indian farmers, while the other insists that any sustainable development strategy must structurally include agriculture. Together, the pieces frame the farm sector as both a trade-policy casualty and a development-policy cornerstone.
View I
India–US trade deal is too costly for farmers
Core Arguments
Asymmetric liberalisation harms Indian agriculture
The article argues that tariff concessions under a potential India–US trade deal would expose Indian farmers to heavily subsidised American agricultural products, creating an uneven playing field.
Farmer livelihoods versus consumer gains
While cheaper imports may benefit urban consumers, the author stresses that this comes at the direct cost of rural incomes, farm viability, and price stability for domestic producers.
Past trade experience is cautionary
Earlier trade openings, particularly in edible oils and certain cash crops, are cited implicitly as lessons where farmers bore adjustment costs without adequate compensation.
Agriculture is not just another sector
The author underlines that Indian agriculture sustains a large share of the population, making it qualitatively different from manufacturing or services in trade negotiations.
Author’s Stance
The stance is strongly sceptical of the India–US trade deal from a farmer-centric perspective. The author prioritises livelihood security, price protection, and domestic capacity over market access and strategic trade alignment.
Biases and Perspective
- Pro-farmer, protection-oriented bias
- Skepticism toward free trade agreements involving advanced economies
- Limited engagement with long-term efficiency gains or export opportunities
View II
Development cannot bypass the farm sector
Core Arguments
Agriculture remains central to employment and demand
The article argues that ignoring agriculture weakens overall growth, as rural incomes drive consumption demand and employment for a large section of the population.
Structural transformation is incomplete
India’s development path has not followed the classic transition from agriculture to industry smoothly. Premature neglect of agriculture risks widening inequality.
Raising farm incomes has economy-wide spillovers
Higher agricultural incomes stimulate demand for manufacturing and services, strengthening growth multipliers across sectors.
Policy neglect, not farm inefficiency, is the real problem
The article stresses that low productivity stems from underinvestment, fragmented markets, and policy uncertainty rather than inherent unviability of farming.
Author’s Stance
The author adopts a developmental and structuralist stance, arguing that agriculture must remain central to India’s growth strategy rather than being sacrificed at the altar of trade efficiency or headline GDP growth.
Biases and Perspective
- Growth-with-equity bias
- Preference for state-supported agricultural modernisation
- Understates fiscal constraints and global competitiveness pressures
Comparative Assessment: Convergence and Divergence
Points of Convergence
- Agriculture is structurally important to India’s economy
- Policy decisions affecting farms have wide social consequences
- Unchecked liberalisation can deepen rural distress
Points of Divergence
- One focuses on external trade shocks, the other on internal development strategy
- One argues for protection, the other for prioritised investment and reform
Pros and Cons Emerging from the Debate
Pros
- Highlights distributional consequences of trade policy
- Reinforces agriculture’s role in inclusive growth
- Warns against urban–consumer bias in policymaking
Cons
- Risk of excessive protectionism
- Limited discussion on export competitiveness and diversification
- Insufficient attention to reform sequencing within agriculture
Policy Implications
Trade Policy
India must approach trade negotiations with calibrated safeguards for sensitive agricultural commodities.
Agricultural Policy
Need for productivity-enhancing reforms, investment in irrigation, storage, and market access, rather than reliance on price protection alone.
Development Strategy
Balanced growth requires synchronising farm reforms with industrial and services expansion, not bypassing agriculture.
Political Economy
Ignoring farmer distress risks social instability and electoral backlash, affecting reform sustainability.
Real-World Impact
- Farmers face income volatility and market uncertainty
- Consumers may benefit from lower prices but at social cost
- Government confronts trade-offs between global integration and domestic stability
- Economy risks demand compression if rural incomes stagnate
UPSC GS Paper Alignment
GS Paper II (Governance & International Relations)
- Trade agreements and national interest
- Federal and social dimensions of economic policy
GS Paper III (Indian Economy & Agriculture)
- Agricultural marketing, subsidies, and trade
- Inclusive growth and employment
Essay Paper
- “Free trade versus fair trade in developing economies”
- “Can development be inclusive without agrarian reform?”
Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective
Together, the two articles make a compelling case that trade-led growth cannot be pursued in isolation from agrarian realities. While global integration is necessary for India’s long-term strategic and economic interests, agriculture cannot be treated as a residual sector to be adjusted after deals are signed.
The way forward lies not in outright rejection of trade agreements, nor in blind liberalisation, but in sequenced reforms—protecting vulnerable farmers in the short term while investing in productivity, diversification, and market resilience in the long run. Development that bypasses the farm sector is neither economically durable nor socially sustainable.
