Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Sunday intensified his criticism of the Centre over the recently announced India–US interim trade agreement, alleging that the pact could “betray” Indian farmers and undermine the country’s agricultural sovereignty. Raising a series of questions directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Gandhi sought detailed clarification on provisions he believes could have long-term consequences for India’s farming sector.
In a post on social media platform X, Gandhi said the agreement raises serious concerns about the future of domestic agriculture and demanded transparency from the government. He framed the issue as one extending beyond immediate trade benefits, arguing that the deal could allow foreign influence to gradually expand within India’s agricultural ecosystem.
The Congress leader outlined five specific questions for the prime minister. He asked whether the proposed import of dried distillers grains (DDG) would result in Indian cattle being fed feed derived from genetically modified American corn, potentially linking India’s dairy production to foreign agricultural supply chains. He also questioned the impact of allowing genetically modified soybean oil imports, warning that such measures could place additional pressure on soybean farmers in states such as Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan by triggering price volatility.
Gandhi further sought clarity on references to “additional products” included in the agreement, asking whether this could eventually open Indian markets to imports of pulses and other agricultural commodities. He also questioned what the removal of “non-trade barriers” would entail, expressing concern that India might face future pressure to dilute policies related to genetically modified crops, procurement systems, minimum support prices (MSP), or farmer incentives. Finally, he asked whether safeguards exist to prevent gradual expansion of agricultural imports in future negotiations.
Stating that farmers deserve clear answers, Gandhi argued that the agreement could shape the long-term trajectory of India’s agricultural economy. He questioned whether the country was allowing another nation to establish deeper structural influence over its farming sector through trade arrangements.
The interim trade framework between India and the United States aims to reduce tariffs on a wide range of Indian exports, with US duties expected to fall from levels nearing 50 percent to roughly 18 percent. In return, India has agreed to expand purchases of American goods, including energy and technology products, with a non-binding trade target of up to $500 billion in the coming years. The government has maintained that sensitive agricultural sectors remain protected under the arrangement and that India retains policy flexibility on key issues.
The agreement has drawn criticism from several opposition parties, which argue that it could disadvantage domestic farmers and markets while disproportionately benefiting the United States. During a recent debate in the Lok Sabha, Gandhi sharply criticised the deal, describing it as a major concession that could compromise energy security and agricultural interests.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) responded strongly to the allegations. Union Home Minister Amit Shah accused Gandhi of spreading misinformation and misleading farmers, asserting that the government had ensured full protection of farmers’ and fishermen’s interests in the trade negotiations. Shah said Gandhi should review the details of trade agreements with partners including the United Kingdom and the European Union before making claims, accusing him of repeatedly promoting inaccurate narratives.
Amid the political exchange, Gandhi also met representatives of farmers’ unions at Parliament House on Friday to discuss concerns related to the trade agreement and the possibility of organising a broader nationwide movement aimed at safeguarding farmers’ livelihoods and agricultural policy protections.
The debate surrounding the India–US trade deal has thus evolved into a major political issue, with the government emphasising economic opportunity and market access, while opposition leaders continue to question its implications for India’s agricultural independence and rural economy.
