Top News

Wow, what coordination! That was my first reaction on reading the Niti Aayog’s latest paper on the agriculture segment of the ongoing India–US trade talks. There, the US government turns up the heat, warning India to slash import duties on American farm products — or else. Here, government-appointed ‘experts’ are busy figuring out how to do exactly that.

The US wants India to lift its ban on genetically modified (GM) soyabean and corn imports, and Indian officials are scrambling to find ways to dodge the GM ban. The synchronisation is so perfect, you have to wonder — are both sides taking their cues and cash from the same source/s?

Technically, the ‘working paper’ released this week by Niti Aayog represents the personal views of two experts. But when one of these experts is Ramesh Chand, a member of Niti Aayog and the chief architect of the Modi government’s agriculture policy, along with co-author Raka Saxena, there’s nothing ‘personal’ about it.

And when a research paper titled ‘Promoting India–US agriculture trade under the new US trade regime’ appears on Niti Aayog’s official website just days before a key trade deal deadline with the US, this isn’t just academic speculation — it’s an unofficial but unmistakable policy signal. Or perhaps a feeler to test political reactions.

Either way, one thing is clear: through this paper, the Indian government is floating a trial balloon — it is ready to accept the US’s agricultural terms in the upcoming trade agreement.

The issue is straightforward. Over the past few years, China has reduced its import of US agricultural goods. Naturally, the US has now set its sights on the Indian agri-market. Just last year, the US department of agriculture said in a report on India’s meat industry that demand for soyabean and corn — used in chicken feed and pig feed — is set to surge in India. For the US, this is the perfect opening to dump its GM soyabean and corn here — provided India lowers tariffs and lifts the GM ban.

Dr Ramesh Chand Raka Saxena US farmers fear tariffs could cost them one of their biggest markets in China

High-level trade negotiations between India and the US have already taken place this year. In fact, US President Trump had paused his retaliatory tariffs for 90 days, a deadline that ends on 9 July.

Now, look at the Niti Aayog paper in this light. The first 23 pages are filled with a professional, data-driven assessment of India’s agri-export landscape, complete with challenges and forecasts. But then, it’s as if the authors got a call mid-writing. Abruptly, the report glosses over agricultural imports in a single page, jumps to conclusions, and presents recommendations.

The conclusions have no logical connection to the preceding analysis. The analysis is about exports, but the recommendations are all about facilitating imports. A body that is supposed to protect Indian interests is sounding like a US lobbyist.

In essence, the Niti Aayog paper offers a ‘compulsion logic’ — since the US is a major market for India’s food exports, we must do whatever it takes to keep that market open. Except, the paper’s own data does not support this rationale. The US buys less than 10 per cent of India’s total agricultural exports, whereas it buys 18 per cent of India’s non-agricultural exports. Despite this weak premise, the paper recommends tariff concessions for US soyabean and corn imports.

And what about the GM roadblock? The paper has workarounds. Don’t import the raw soyabean — import soyabean oil instead. Or, if importing soyabean is unavoidable, restrict its use to oil extraction only. Likewise, go ahead and import cheap American corn, but ensure it’s used only for biofuel. GM isn’t even a hurdle for importing US apples, almonds or pistachios — just cut the tariffs as per Washington’s wishlist. Lower tariffs on rice and black pepper won’t hurt us much either — America will be pleased and we won’t lose much.

Corn and soyabean fields in Minnesota, US Maharashtra onion farmers’ woes doubled by unseasonal rain amid price slump

Clearly, these aren’t just ‘recommendations’ but a trailer for a policy overhaul. On 30 May, the Indian government slashed import duty on soyabean and other edible oils from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. This report is now laying the groundwork to take that down to zero.

Nowhere in this document do the experts pause to ask a critical question: what will opening India’s agricultural market to American imports do to Indian farmers?

Even before soyabean imports began, farmers in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have taken a hit — how will they get fair prices for their crops now? What happens to maize farmers from Punjab to Bengal when corn prices nosedive?

If GM soyabean and corn manage to sneak in through these backdoors, can we really stop their spread into domestic farming? Reducing tariffs on some crops might not hurt directly, but will it not undercut our agri-trade terms with other countries? And what about shielding our dairy, poultry and meat sectors from the fallout of this trade deal? But maybe that’s beyond Niti Aayog’s line of vision. Those questions will now have to be asked by the farmers’ movement.

Let’s also not forget — every time President Trump has claimed credit for stopping a war between India and Pakistan, he’s paired it with mention of a ‘trade deal’ in the same breath. Sure, Donald Trump has no relationship with the truth. But one still has to ask: is there a deeper backroom duet playing out behind this Indo–US trade deal?

---