Indian Farmers oppose India–US Trade Deal, fear loss of livelihoods in the Himalayan states

India and the United States have announced an interim trade agreement aimed at easing tariffs and expanding bilateral trade in sectors such as manufacturing, technology, and selected agricultural products. Under the proposed framework, the US would reduce tariffs on Indian exports to around 18 percent, while India would offer limited tariff concessions on selected US products, including soybean oil, nuts and certain fruits, while excluding sensitive farm sectors. 

The agreement remains unsigned, with talks currently on hold following a ruling by the US Supreme Court affecting President Donald Trump’s usage of emergency powers to impose tariffs, prompting both sides to reassess certain provisions before moving forward.

The trade agreement negotiations are part of New Delhi’s broader effort to stabilise exports and strengthen economic ties with Washington amid renewed global trade uncertainty and  President Donald Trump's second term.

Indian Union Trade Minister Piyush Goyal says the proposed deal largely excludes agriculture, but farmers’ unions argue that even limited tariff concessions on specific commodities could expose domestic growers to competition from heavily subsidised US imports. As negotiations remain on hold, the proposed agreement has triggered nationwide protests, particularly in India’s agrarian and Himalayan regions, where farmers fear potential economic and environmental fallout.

Harpreet Singh, 53, stood along a national highway in Amritsar district in Punjab, holding a banner showing images of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Trump with the slogan ‘Trade without justice is betrayal.’ He was among other farmers who gathered on 12 February to  temporarily block traffic as part of coordinated protests across India against the proposed trade agreement with the United States.

From Punjab’s grain mandis to the apple orchards of Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir, millions of farmers, labourers, and other professionals halted work to support nationwide farmers' protest. Protesters argued that even limited tariff concessions could increase pressure on Indian farmers and further strain the already fragile rural economies of Himalayan states.

In Punjab, the General Secretary of All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), Vijoo Krishnan Singh, told FairPlanet that past experiences had taught farmers to be cautious. The protesting farmers alleged that the trade agreement would weaken the farming economy on which millions of people depend. ‘We are not against trade,’ Singh said, ‘but we are against unequal trade. US farmers receive subsidies and insurance protection, and now they do not have to pay tax for their goods in India. How can Indian farmers survive without the same safety nets?’

Trade deal concerns come amid existing climate vulnerabilities and market pressures

In the Himalayan states, opposition to the deal is driven not only by market concerns but also by existing climate pressure. Apple cultivation in regions such as Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Uttarakhand depends on narrow climatic windows and is ‘already operating under growing climate stress,’ as Meenakshi Rao, a Delhi-based agricultural economist, told FairPlanet: ‘Erratic snowfall, warming temperatures, and rising input costs have reduced farmers’ resilience, and sudden exposure to imported competition could intensify income volatility.’

‘In recent years, irregular snowfall and warmer winters have reduced yields and increased costs. If cheaper imports enter the market at the same time, farmers like us have little buffer to absorb the shock’, Mushtaq Ahmad, an orchardist from Jammu and Kashmir told Fair Planet. 

Shazia Bano, an orchard worker from Baramulla district, said that rising expenses further increased the pressure on farmers: ‘Last year’s hailstorms and repeated highway closures caused heavy losses to our produce. Fertiliser prices have doubled, packing costs are rising, and lower-priced imports would push local rates down even further.’

In Himachal Pradesh, apple markets remained closed during the 12 February protests, reflecting growers’ concerns that price pressures from imports could add further pressure at a time when input costs, transport expenses and climate-related losses are already squeezing margins. Farmers’ unions reported similar demonstrations in several other Indian states.

Economic Risks for India’s Apple Industry

India produces roughly 2.5 million metric tonnes of apples every year, placing it among the world’s leading apple-producing countries. Apple cultivation is largely concentrated in the northern Himalayan belt, with Jammu and Kashmir contributing nearly three-quarters of the total output, followed by Himachal Pradesh at about one-fifth, while smaller quantities come from states such as Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland.

The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a New Delhi-based think tank, warns that tariff concessions on agricultural imports such as soybean oil, fruit (particularly apples) and dried fruit (such as almonds and walnuts) could affect Indian farmers, as US producers benefit from economies of scale and subsidies.

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has stressed that local growers may struggle to compete with imports from the US, despite their recent efforts: ‘For the past few years, Indian farmers have invested heavily and introduced new varieties to deliver high-quality produce to domestic markets. Small growers may now struggle to compete with imports from the US, creating an uneven playing field for locally produced fruits and farm goods.’

For farmers in Punjab, the 12 February protests revived memories of the 2024-2025 farmers' protests, when they protested for months over the legal minimum price for their crops, loan waivers, and compensation for around 700 farmers who died in protests. Those protests, among the largest in Indian history, eventually led to the repeal of controversial farm laws.

Harpreet Singh, a union organizer in Uttarakhand, told FairPlanet that many protesters view the trade deal as a continuation of earlier threats: ‘We fought the minimum support system, and now we feel pressure returning through international agreements.’ While Indian authorities claim that the deal will protect farmers and is strategically important for strengthening ties with Washington, farmers' unions insist that rural consultation has not been taken. “Decisions are taken in air-conditioned rooms,” Singh said. “We live with the consequences.”

According to Singh, farmers are not generally opposed to open markets but want fair conditions: ‘Give us infrastructure and protection, and we can compete fairly,’ he said.“We are not afraid of markets. We are afraid of unequal markets.”

Solutions to reduce the risks for local farmers exist, analyst Sawant Kumar told FairPlanet: ‘strengthening crop insurance, expanding disaster compensation, and investing in climate-adaptation infrastructure would reduce risks for farmers already facing environmental and market pressures.’

Without such measures, market exposure could accelerate distress migration from Himalayan regions already facing ecological instability. With negotiations paused, farmers urge that their opposition is not to trade itself but to enter global markets without clear protections in place.