In agriculture, US-India trade deal is both good and not-so-good

Indian agriculture is not a monolith, it has both dynamic and not-so-dynamic components. The sector’s overall average annual growth of 4.4 per cent during 2014-15 to 2023-24 has primarily come from livestock and fisheries, with their respective gross value added rising by 7.2 per cent and 8.9 per cent, according to NITI Aayog member Ramesh Chand. On the other hand, the crops subsector has recorded just 2.8 per cent annual increase. And within that, there’s a clear difference between faster-growing horticulture (fruits, vegetables, condiments and spices) and the relatively sluggish field crops segments. It’s not for nothing that the nearly-sealed India-US bilateral trade agreement has met with a varied response. The poultry, dairy and aqua industries have largely welcomed it, while soyabean, maize and even sugarcane growers and processors won’t be as happy.

For animal farmers — those raising cattle, poultry, fish and shrimp —feed is a significant cost element. Opening the door to imports of red sorghum and distiller’s dried grains with solubles from the US can provide access to potentially cheaper and better-quality feed ingredients. That, and India not giving concessions to American dairy or poultry product imports, makes this an unquestionably good deal for the animal husbandry sector. From an equity standpoint, too, livestock farming is a more labour- than land-intensive economic activity, while contributing a higher share of income for marginal agricultural households. Any analysis of the impact of policy — whether trade or subsidies and cash transfers — on “agriculture” must look at different subsectors and the predominant farmer types engaged in each of these.

The crops subsector is more likely to be affected by the increased market access for US farm produce. That has as much to do with agronomy as domestic policy failures. Average corn and soyabean yields in India are a third, or even less, of those in the US. Washington apple yields, at over 48 tonnes per hectare, are way above the corresponding average of 12 tonnes for J&K and 5 tonnes for Himachal Pradesh. Indian maize and soyabean farmers have been denied the right to plant GM seeds — and are now forced to compete with their more productive American counterparts deploying these technologies. Neither has much effort gone into promoting high-density planting, renewal pruning, drip irrigation and precision nutrient management techniques to improve yields and fruit quality in apple orchards. Policy should enable Indian agriculture to be more market-oriented and globally competitive. And some segments already are.

Overall Analysis

This editorial presents a nuanced assessment of the proposed India–US trade agreement, arguing that its impact on Indian agriculture will be uneven. The central thesis is that Indian agriculture is diverse and segmented, and therefore policy effects cannot be judged uniformly.

The opening paragraph establishes this diversity by contrasting high-growth sectors such as livestock and fisheries with the relatively slow-growing crops subsector. Statistical references lend credibility and analytical depth. The phrase “not a monolith” signals the author’s key argument — agriculture must be understood in parts, not as a single block. By highlighting how poultry, dairy, and aquaculture industries have welcomed the deal while soyabean, maize, and sugarcane farmers are wary, the editorial frames the trade agreement as selectively beneficial.

The second paragraph shifts focus to animal husbandry. It explains how cheaper imports of feed ingredients like red sorghum and distiller’s dried grains from the US can reduce input costs for livestock farmers. The language here is more positive and confident — calling the deal “unquestionably good” for this segment. The editorial also introduces an equity dimension, noting that livestock farming is more labour-intensive and supports marginal farmers. This broadens the argument beyond economics to social justice, suggesting that policy benefits may accrue to more vulnerable households.

The third paragraph adopts a cautionary tone. It argues that field crops will face tougher competition due to structural disadvantages such as lower yields and restrictions on genetically modified (GM) seeds. Comparisons of corn, soyabean, and apple yields between India and the US emphasize the productivity gap. The editorial critiques domestic policy shortcomings, including limited technological adoption and inadequate agronomic reforms. The concluding suggestion is reform-oriented: instead of resisting trade, India should strengthen competitiveness through modernization and market orientation.

Overall, the editorial maintains a balanced and analytical style. It neither glorifies nor condemns the trade deal outright. Instead, it underscores that outcomes will vary across subsectors and that domestic reforms are essential for long-term competitiveness.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Monolith – something viewed as uniform or unchanging, without internal diversity.
2. Subsector – a distinct division within a larger sector.
3. Agronomy – the science of soil management and crop production.
4. Intensive – requiring a large amount of labour, resources, or effort.
5. Competitiveness – the ability to compete effectively in markets.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that the US–India trade deal is beneficial for dynamic, labour-intensive livestock sectors but potentially challenging for less productive crop segments. It emphasizes that the real solution lies in improving productivity, technology adoption, and market orientation within Indian agriculture.

Tone: Balanced, analytical, and reform-oriented.