Rahul Gandhi Questions India-US Trade Deal's Impact on Farmers and Textiles

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has launched a strong attack on the Narendra Modi-led government over the recently announced framework for an interim trade deal between India and the United States, accusing it of 'betraying' Indian farmers and textile exporters. Gandhi articulated his concerns by posing five specific questions to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demanding clarity on several aspects of the agreement [3, 4, 17, 21]. The primary points of contention raised by Gandhi revolve around the perceived disadvantages for India's crucial agricultural and textile sectors. He highlighted a significant disparity in garment tariffs, noting that while Indian garments face an 18% tariff in the US market, neighboring Bangladesh is reportedly granted zero-duty access on the condition that it imports American cotton [2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12]. Gandhi argued that this situation places Indian cotton farmers and textile exporters in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' trap: importing American cotton would ruin domestic farmers, while not importing it would cripple the Indian textile industry by making its exports uncompetitive [6, 8, 10, 12]. He further stated that millions of families dependent on these sectors could face unemployment and economic crisis [8, 12]. Beyond textiles, Rahul Gandhi expressed apprehension regarding the agricultural implications of the deal. He questioned the potential import of Dried Distillers' Grains (DDG) made from genetically modified (GM) American corn, suggesting it could make India's dairy products dependent on the US agricultural industry [3, 4]. Similarly, he voiced concerns about the impact of allowing genetically modified soy oil imports on domestic soy farmers, particularly in states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan, warning of another potential price shock for these growers [3, 4]. He also sought clarification on the terms 'additional products' and 'non-trade barriers' mentioned in the agreement, fearing these could be avenues for pressure to liberalize GM crops, weaken existing procurement policies, or reduce Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) and bonuses for Indian farmers [4]. Gandhi consistently framed these measures as a move by the US to gain a long-term foothold in India's agriculture sector, ultimately jeopardizing India's food security [3, 4, 11]. The government, through Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal, has strongly refuted Rahul Gandhi's allegations. Goyal dismissed Gandhi's criticism as 'misleading,' 'ignorant,' and 'immature,' asserting that the Modi government has fully protected the interests of Indian farmers [6, 10]. He stated that 90-95% of sensitive agricultural sectors remain shielded from the deal, with no tariff concessions granted for key domestic crops such as wheat, rice, maize (corn), and millets (jowar, bajra, ragi). Furthermore, products like milk, ghee, butter, paneer, and chicken are said to remain fully protected, and the government has explicitly maintained a ban on the import of genetically modified (GM) products [20]. Goyal emphasized that the trade deal is structured to benefit various sectors, including farmers, fishermen, youth, Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), startups, and artisans [6]. It is important to note the nature of the agreement itself. The deal is described as a 'framework for an Interim Agreement' or an 'interim trade deal,' not a comprehensive Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) [7, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27]. This framework was announced on February 6, 2026, by the US and India [13, 22, 23]. Key components include India's commitment to reduce or eliminate tariffs on all US industrial goods and a range of US food and agricultural products (including DDGs and soybean oil). In return, the United States will apply an 18% reciprocal tariff on certain Indian goods, such as textiles, apparel, leather, footwear, and organic chemicals, with the removal of these reciprocal tariffs contingent upon the successful conclusion of the full Interim Agreement [7, 16, 18, 22, 27]. A significant development, crucial for understanding the current context, is the revision of certain aspects of the deal's fact sheet. Initially, India was understood to have 'committed' to purchasing $500 billion worth of US goods over five years. However, this was later revised to an 'intention' rather than a binding commitment, and importantly, agricultural goods were excluded from this purchase plan. Additionally, earlier references to India reducing tariffs on 'certain pulses' were removed, making the deal 'more politically palatable' for India by addressing some farmer concerns [26]. Beyond Rahul Gandhi, veteran Congress leader P. Chidambaram also voiced strong criticism, calling the framework 'heavily tilted in favour of the US' and 'opaque and one-sided,' lacking true reciprocity [7, 13, 15, 27]. He highlighted that India's agreement to reduce tariffs on US industrial and agricultural goods was not met with equivalent concessions from the US, which maintained reciprocal tariffs on Indian exports [7, 27]. Against this backdrop, farmer unions across India have expressed strong opposition to the interim trade deal. They have met with Rahul Gandhi to convey their fears that the agreement poses a 'grave threat' to the livelihoods of farmers cultivating crops such as corn, soybean, cotton, fruits, and nuts. These unions are advocating for a nationwide movement to resist the implementation of the deal and safeguard farmers' rights and incomes [5, 19, 20]. The situation underscores an ongoing and heated political and economic debate within India regarding its trade relations with the US and the protection of its domestic agricultural sector.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest