Last Updated on February 6, 2026 3:49 pm by BIZNAMA NEWS
By Devsagar Singh
It is not for no reason that Opposition heckles are being raised over the much-hyped but still unsigned India–US trade deal. With speculation mounting and political temperatures rising, Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal admitted on Thursday, February 5, that India and the United States are likely to sign the “first tranche” of their new trade agreement by mid-March.
The announcement, though meant to project confidence, has instead triggered deeper questions—especially because the proposed deal is being portrayed as historic while the details remain largely under wraps. The Opposition, particularly, sees the lack of transparency as a red flag, and insists that the Government must place all major commitments on record before entering into a binding agreement.
Goyal sought to justify India’s reported commitment of nearly 500 billion dollars in purchases from the United States, even though India’s total imports last year were around 750 billion dollars. Critics argue that such a large purchase target, in comparison to overall imports, raises doubts over whether India is being pushed into an imbalance favouring Washington.
To bolster his argument while responding to queries, Goyal reportedly stated:
“Our steel capacity is going to double from today’s 140 million tonnes to about 300 million tonnes in the next few years. And therefore, when we estimated what we will need from the US, we came to a figure of at least 500 billion dollars. We can clearly see before our eyes the potential that we can procure from the US over the next five years.”
He further foresaw major airplane purchases from Boeing, reportedly to the tune of 100 billion dollars, signalling that India’s expanding aviation market could become a cornerstone of the agreement.
However, while Goyal spoke in detail about steel, energy and aircraft procurement, what remains unclear—and politically explosive—is the status of trade negotiations in the food and agriculture sector. Reports suggest that India may have offered limited market access to US agricultural and food products. The US Commerce Secretary has already described this segment as a “game changer” for American farmers, a phrase that has understandably caused anxiety within India’s farming community.
What Goyal did not clarify is whether India has agreed to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers on sensitive agricultural commodities, or whether it has opened the door for greater import of items that could directly compete with Indian farm produce. While assurances have been made at the highest levels that the interests of Indian farmers will not be jeopardized, the concerns remain legitimate. Agriculture is not merely an economic sector in India—it is a livelihood backbone for millions, dominated by small and marginal farmers who are often vulnerable to global price shocks.
Until the fine print of the agreement is made public, there cannot be any finality over the issue. Transparency is not optional; it is essential.
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has come out strongly against the Government for what he called “compromises” that may put small and marginal farmers at risk. His argument is rooted in a long-standing political and economic reality: India has historically resisted pressure to open its agricultural sector aggressively since the World Trade Organization came into being, precisely because it recognises the fragility of rural incomes and the potential for social disruption.
At a time when Parliament is in session, the least the Government can do is take the Opposition into confidence on such a sensitive issue. Trade agreements do not merely impact GDP statistics; they reshape domestic markets, alter farmer income patterns, affect food prices, and influence industrial competitiveness.
Reports indicate that India may have agreed to “limited trade” concessions in agri and food items. If that is the case, a fair assessment must be conducted regarding its long-term impact, and adequate safeguards must be built in. Any agreement must be backed by clear compensatory mechanisms, protective clauses, and domestic support policies to ensure that vulnerable sectors do not suffer irreversible harm. This cannot be done merely to satisfy somebody’s whims, howsoever high and mighty.
India has, in recent years, signed and pursued “historic” trade agreements with the UK, the European Union, and other partners, thereby diversifying its trade basket. This diversification has been a strategic move and has strengthened India’s bargaining position globally. Therefore, India certainly has options—and must exercise them wisely.
It is also worth recalling that India has faced enough of threats, allurements, and shifting goalposts from Washington in the past. President Donald Trump has been more than mercurial in his recent dealings, and his approach to international trade has often been transactional, aggressive, and unpredictable. Capitulating under pressure may not serve India’s long-term national interest.
While the agreement has been announced as one that reduces tariffs from 50 per cent to 18 per cent—being described as the best internationally—there is still a pressing need for abundant caution. Announcements and assurances are no substitute for written commitments.
In trade diplomacy, what matters is not the headline but the fine print. India must ensure that any deal signed is not merely politically convenient or symbolically grand, but economically balanced, strategically sound, and socially sustainable. Until everything comes in black and white—and becomes operational—the celebration may be premature.
