5
Punjab farmers fear trade deal could threaten livelihoods, a deal which is nowhere near being signed.
Punjab farmers fear India-US trade deal could threaten livelihoods amid rising costs
Hundreds of farmers gathered at the Punjab-Haryana border early this week, blocking their onward journey to Delhi as they protested against the India-US trade deal, which they fear could expose Indian agriculture to unfair competition from American farm products.
Carrying flags, banners, and messages demanding protection for domestic agriculture, the farmers arrived at the Shambhu border determined to take their concerns to the national capital. Their march, however, was halted by security barricades and police deployment, turning the highway into a tense scene of confrontation between protesters and authorities.
For the farmers standing on the roadside, the issue was not simply about tariffs, trade negotiations, or diplomatic agreements. It was about whether a small farmer cultivating a few acres of land could survive in an agricultural economy increasingly connected to global markets.
“We are not against trade. We are against a trade policy that leaves farmers behind,” said Harjit Singh, a farmer from Punjab who joined the protest. “We already struggle with rising fertiliser costs, expensive machinery, debt, and unpredictable weather. If cheaper foreign products enter our markets without protection, how will ordinary farmers survive?”
The farmers’ concerns are centred on the possibility that the India-US trade agreement could increase agricultural imports, particularly from a country where farmers benefit from large-scale mechanisation, advanced technology, and extensive government support.
Farmer organisations argue that Indian farmers, many of whom operate small holdings and face high production costs, may not be able to compete with imported products sold at lower prices.
For many protesters, the debate is not about rejecting international trade but about ensuring that Indian agriculture is not placed at a disadvantage. “We cannot compare an American farmer with thousands of acres, modern technology, and strong support systems to an Indian farmer with a small piece of land and limited resources,” said Gurmeet Kaur, a farmer from Haryana. “The government talks about markets, but for us, the question is whether farming will remain a livelihood for our children.”
The government has maintained that trade agreements are designed to expand economic opportunities, strengthen exports, and benefit multiple sectors. Officials have said that sensitive areas are considered during negotiations and that necessary safeguards can be introduced to protect domestic interests.
But among farmers, scepticism remains high. Years of protests over minimum support prices, agricultural imports, rising input costs, and rural debt have created deep concerns about whether policy decisions adequately reflect the realities of farming communities.
“Every time there is a new policy, farmers are told that it will bring benefits in the future,” said farmer leader Baldev Singh. “But the farmer has to survive today. We cannot repay loans with promises.” The confrontation at the border reflects a larger national debate over how India balances its push for global economic integration with the needs of its agricultural sector, which supports millions of livelihoods.
Agricultural economist Dr. Meera Sharma said trade agreements can bring opportunities but can also create pressure on vulnerable sections of the economy. “International trade is not automatically good or bad. The impact depends on the conditions under which it happens,” she said. “Large producers, exporters, and industries with strong infrastructure may benefit quickly. Small farmers need support systems that allow them to compete.”
She said investment in storage facilities, agricultural technology, crop diversification, insurance schemes, and better market access would be critical if farmers are expected to participate in global markets. “Without these protections, farmers may experience the pressure of global competition without receiving the benefits of global trade,” she added.
The debate has also attracted attention from environmental experts, who say agricultural trade policies can influence farming patterns and ecological sustainability. Dr. Anil Verma, an environmental researcher specialising in agriculture and climate change, said Indian farmers are already facing multiple pressures from changing climate conditions.
“Farmers are dealing with unpredictable rainfall, declining groundwater levels, soil degradation, and rising production costs,” he said. “Any major agricultural trade policy must consider not only economic consequences but also environmental impacts.”
He warned that market pressures could influence farmers to shift towards crops that offer short-term financial returns but may create long-term ecological challenges. “If farmers are pushed only towards crops that can compete internationally, it could increase pressure on soil, water resources, and biodiversity,” Verma said. “A sustainable agricultural system must protect both farmers and the environment.”
For the farmers gathered at the Shambhu border, however, the debate remains deeply personal. Behind the banners and slogans are families worried about loan repayments, uncertain harvests, and the future of the next generation. “We are not asking the country to stop progressing,” said Harjit Singh.
“We only want progress that includes the farmer.”
As the standoff continued at the Punjab-Haryana border, the barricades became a symbol of a wider national debate over India’s economic future. The question facing policymakers is not whether India should engage with global markets, but how it can do so without leaving millions of farmers struggling to survive.
Comments are closed.