The India–US Trade Deal: Separating truth from myths on Agriculture.........by GPS Mann

Let the reader decide whom to believe: a learned economist grounded in data, or a trade unionist-minded writer and YouTuber peddling fear.

As an Indian citizen and a farmer deeply invested in our nation’s agricultural future—especially here in Punjab, where farming is the lifeblood of communities like mine in Mohali—I have watched the recent India–US interim trade framework spark heated debates, protests, and a flood of misinformation.

It all began with a tweet by US Secretary Brooke Rollins, stating that the new trade deal would expand exports of American farm products to India, lift prices, and pump cash into rural America.

Farmer organizations responded by calling for Bharat Bandhs, fearing a surge of cheap US imports that could devastate local livelihoods. Opposition voices portrayed the agreement as a betrayal—prioritizing foreign interests over India’s rural backbone.

However, as someone who values facts over frenzy, I believe these apprehensions are largely misplaced.

This deal is not a zero-sum game. It is a balanced step aimed at boosting exports, addressing domestic shortages, and supporting our protein-deficient diets—without undermining key agricultural sectors.

Drawing from expert analyses such as Shekhar Gupta’s Cut The Clutter on ThePrint and Ashok Gulati’s interview with Karan Thapar on The Wire, let us examine the data and separate myth from reality.

The Big Picture: India Is Already Ahead

India’s agricultural trade with the US already runs a healthy surplus.

We export between $5.9 and $6.2 billion worth of agricultural goods annually to the US. These include basmati rice ($1.8 billion), spices ($900 million), cashews and tree nuts ($750 million), and marine products ($650 million).

Meanwhile, we import about $2.7 billion worth of goods, leaving us with a $3–4.1 billion surplus.

With zero-tariff access opening US markets to more Indian spices, tea, coffee, mangoes, papayas, and marine products, projections suggest this surplus could widen further.

The total US import market in these categories is worth $82 billion globally, while India currently holds just a 3.5% share. Even a modest increase could significantly benefit Indian farmers.

Importantly, staples such as rice, wheat, corn, dairy, and poultry remain protected from imports, ensuring no threat to our core food grain sectors.

The Edible Oil Reality

One major concern raised is that the deal will flood Indian markets with subsidized US goods, crashing prices.

The reality is more nuanced.

India produces only 9.6 million tonnes of edible oil annually—meeting just 40% of domestic demand. We already import 16.7 million tonnes worth $18–20 billion each year to bridge this gap.

Without imports, prices would surge, hurting consumers—particularly the poor.

Nearly 30% of India’s population is strictly vegetarian. Our diets rely heavily on carbohydrates like wheat and rice but lack sufficient proteins and fats. Protein deficiency affects 73–80% of Indians.

Soybean oil and related imports help stabilize cooking oil prices and indirectly support protein supply via animal feed. India has already been importing GM-derived oils from Argentina and Brazil for nearly two decades.

As Gulati notes, debates over trace GM elements exist, but such imports are not new risks—they are practical necessities given our production shortfall.

Animal Feed: Limited and Controlled

The deal permits limited imports of DDGS (dried distillers’ grains with solubles) and de-oiled cake (DOC), both used in poultry, dairy, and aquaculture.

India has capped DDGS imports at 0.5 million tonnes—just 1% of our 50 million tonne annual feed consumption.

These imports help reduce feed costs by 15–20%, making milk, eggs, and meat more affordable. Dairy and poultry sectors themselves remain fully protected from direct imports.

While Gulati acknowledges that GM traces in feed are “almost certain,” he points out that similar exposure already exists domestically through cottonseed oil and other feed sources. The issue, therefore, is not new risk—but policy inconsistency.

Pulses: A “Triple Paradox”

India is the world’s largest producer, consumer, and importer of pulses.

We produce 26–27 million tonnes annually but still face a 20–25% shortfall. In FY 2024–25, we imported 7.25 million tonnes worth $5.48 billion.

However, imports fluctuate depending on monsoon conditions. Good rainfall reduces dependency.

The government’s ₹11,440 crore “Mission for Aatmanirbhar in Pulses” aims to boost output to 35 million tonnes.

The deal does not threaten pulses. India will import only what it needs to stabilize prices—not to dump surplus goods.

The Apple Debate

US apples entering India at lower tariffs have sparked fears of harm to local growers.

India produced 2.55 million tonnes of apples in 2025. Imports stand at 600,000 tonnes.

However, India’s apple production is seasonal, concentrated in Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. US apples typically arrive off-season and cater to premium urban markets.

This is not replacement—it is supplementation.

Similarly, India already imports 98% of its almonds and large volumes of walnuts because domestic production cannot meet demand.

The GM Debate

Critics raise concerns about GM risks from imports.

India already allows GM cotton, which covers 95% of cultivation, but restricts other GM crops. Gulati argues this inconsistency harms productivity.

India spends just $1.1 billion on agricultural research, compared to far higher investments globally. Without science-based policy, productivity gaps will persist.

The Real Problem: Domestic Policy

The deeper issue lies not in this trade deal but in domestic agricultural policies—low research spending, food subsidy structures, Essential Commodities Act restrictions, frequent import-export bans, and MSP uncertainties.

OECD data suggests Indian farmers are not over-subsidized; rather, they are often implicitly taxed through policy distortions.

These systemic constraints deserve more attention than trade agreements.

Conclusion

This framework aligns with Aatmanirbhar Bharat by expanding exports while importing only essential commodities where shortages exist. Dairy and poultry remain protected. Pulses self-sufficiency is being strengthened.

Critics predict disaster, but the data suggests a more balanced reality.

Ultimately, the choice rests with the reader: to believe economists grounded in data, or narratives driven by fear. After all, spreading fear is easy. Educating with facts is harder.

February 12, 2026