Union ministers have accused Rahul Gandhi of spreading “baseless” and misleading claims about the recently announced India–United States trade framework, as the opposition leader stepped up his criticism of the Narendra Modi-led government’s approach.
The clash has sparked nationwide protests by farmers and trade unions who warn that the deal though still in interim form threatens agricultural livelihoods, food security and India’s long-term economic sovereignty. Government officials insist that farmers’ interests are fully protected and that the pact will boost exports and strengthen bilateral economic ties.
Political Clash Over Trade, Farmers’ Interests and National Security
Opposition figures and farmers’ organisations have framed the interim trade deal as an “anti-farmer” arrangement that could expose India’s agricultural sector to cheap, subsidised imports from the United States.
Rahul Gandhi, speaking in Parliament and in a widely shared video message, alleged that the agreement “opens the door to crush our poor farmers” and compromises food security, national control over data and energy interests. He reiterated that he will stand with farmers “even if [the government] files an FIR or privilege motion against me.”
Echoing these concerns, farm unions in regions such as Punjab and Haryana have organised protests and strikes, warning of intensified agitation unless the deal is revoked or its terms substantially modified.
Demonstrators in Greater Noida and other cities have submitted memorandums to authorities and burned copies of the framework agreement, asserting that it disproportionately favours American agricultural exporters and could undercut Indian producers.
Senior Congress leader and farmer wing chairman Sukhpal Singh Khaira labelled the proposed deal a “threat to India’s agricultural economy” that could depress domestic prices for crops such as maize, soyabean and dairy, jeopardising rural incomes. He called for full disclosure of the agreement’s details and broad consultations with farmer groups and state governments.
Government’s Response: “Falsehoods,” “Habitual Liar” and Farmers’ Interests Protected
In strongly worded rebuttals, Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal dismissed Gandhi’s allegations as “baseless” and politically motivated. In a video message and social-media posts on X, Goyal called the Alliance leader a “habitual liar” and accused him of trying to mislead farmers with an “unfounded narrative.” He stressed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration has always prioritised farmers’ welfare and that the agreement “fully protects farmers’ interests.”
Goyal said major crops including wheat, rice, millets, corn, soy-meal, spices and potatoes are safeguarded in the interim deal. He also emphasised that sensitive sectors such as dairy and poultry are not part of the agreement, and that Indian products such as basmati rice, fruits, spices, tea and marine goods will benefit from expanded market access in the US.
“This deal will increase exports and boost incomes for farmers,” he said, while asserting that the pact will create new opportunities for cotton textiles and other sectors.
Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan echoed Goyal’s defence, labelling Gandhi’s claims as misleading and reaffirming the government’s commitment to agricultural welfare. Senior financial minister Nirmala Sitharaman also took aim at Gandhi’s statements, accusing him of misrepresenting budget provisions and trade data to mislead Parliament.
Meanwhile, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju announced that the treasury benches plan to move a privilege notice against Gandhi, accusing him of “misleading the House” with his speech on the trade deal. This political escalation reflects mounting tensions in the ongoing budget session.
Farmers, Unions and Regional Responses Highlight Deepening Concerns
Beyond national party politics, grassroots reactions have sharpened the debate. Farmer groups in Noida and other areas staged protests against the potential for duty-free agricultural imports, claiming that zero tariffs on US farm goods threaten the livelihoods of small and marginal Indian farmers.
Protesters have accused the government of finalising an agreement without meaningful consultation with those whose daily lives could be affected.
In Punjab, state cabinet minister Harpal Singh Cheema characterised the deal as a “conspiracy to destroy Punjab farmers,” arguing that cheap imports of products such as milk powder and cheese will devastate local agriculture. Trade unions and political parties in both Punjab and Haryana supported a nationwide strike, with participants warning of broader mobilisation if their concerns are not addressed.
These protests and strikes have impacted public services and brought rural economic anxieties into view, with farmers warning of downward pressure on prices and erosion of protections such as the Minimum Support Price system unless firm safeguards are in place.
Beyond the Headlines
The current trade framework follows months of negotiations between India and the United States, culminating in a joint statement that tariffs on Indian goods entering the US are being reduced to 18 per cent from earlier high levels a move the government says will boost Indian exports.
Critics, however, argue that reduced duties and expanded access for US products, plus mutual commitments on trade norms, could tilt the economic balance unfavourably for Indian farmers.
Agricultural tariff lines, especially sensitive items such as dairy and poultry, remain officially excluded, though both sides continue discussions on future trade liberalisation. Unions and opposition parties argue that even signalling eventual reductions could invite a flood of heavily subsidised US products into Indian markets, disadvantaging smaller producers.
Analysts say the debate highlights broader questions about India’s strategy in global trade negotiations balancing export competitiveness with domestic sensitivities and the political risks of negotiating high-stakes economic agreements in a highly charged domestic climate.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The dispute over the India–US trade deal underscores the importance of transparent policy-making and informed public debate in a vibrant democracy. Economic decisions with far-reaching impacts on farmers’ livelihoods, national food security, data governance and energy policy deserve careful, evidence-based discussion, not just political point-scoring.
All stakeholders government, opposition, farmers and civil society must engage with facts and projections rather than rhetoric and polarising narratives. Safeguarding farmers’ welfare and ensuring equitable growth are not mutually exclusive goals.
Honest dialogue and full disclosure of deal terms can foster trust and ensure that economic partnerships are strengthened without sacrificing domestic priorities.
