A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.
The concerns follow the conclusion of the India–EU Free Trade Agreement on January 27 and the announcement of an India–US trade deal earlier this month, later corroborated by a joint statement from the two governments. The agreements involve substantial tariff reductions, including concessions on nearly 90 per cent of EU tariff lines and a cut in US reciprocal tariffs from 50 per cent to 18 per cent. While the government has projected these measures as boosting exports and strengthening India’s global economic integration, the Forum argues that the negotiation process lacked transparency and that the long-term implications have not been adequately debated in public or in Parliament.
According to the Forum, in exchange for improved access to foreign markets, India is expected to further open its domestic markets to EU and US imports across sensitive sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing and services. It warned that this could expose farmers, micro and small enterprises and domestic manufacturers to unequal competition from heavily subsidised producers in developed economies. The coalition also expressed concern that these commitments could significantly constrain India’s ability to pursue independent development strategies and respond flexibly to future economic challenges.
In agriculture, the Forum noted that while India has reportedly shielded some sensitive sectors, including dairy and staple crops, from tariff reductions under the EU agreement, the scope of commitments under the US deal remains unclear. It warned that possible tariff cuts on products such as cotton, soybean oil, oilseeds and pulses could undermine farm incomes and expose cultivators to volatile international markets. The group also flagged risks arising from liberalisation in agro-processing sectors such as wines and spirits, processed foods and confectionery, which could weaken backward linkages with Indian agriculture and affect rural employment.
Public health concerns were also highlighted, particularly the expected influx of ultra-processed foods and genetically modified feed products. The Forum pointed to the liberalisation of imports of dried distillers grains used in animal feed, arguing that such imports have already depressed domestic prices and raised questions about biosafety and long-term health impacts. It urged the government to exercise caution and ensure robust risk assessment mechanisms before allowing further imports derived from genetically modified crops.
On manufacturing, the Forum drew attention to major tariff concessions, especially in the automobile sector, where duties on high-value vehicles are set to be reduced sharply under a quota system. It argued that this represents a departure from India’s earlier strategy of using tariffs to attract investment, promote domestic manufacturing and generate employment. The coalition warned that similar concessions across sectors such as chemicals, machinery, steel, medical devices and cosmetics could become progressively irreversible due to most-favoured-nation obligations, potentially weakening flagship initiatives such as Make in India and production-linked incentive schemes.
The Forum also cited India’s reported commitment to purchase large volumes of goods from the United States, including aircraft, automobiles and fuel, cautioning that this could intensify import competition and increase dependence on higher-cost energy imports. It noted that such commitments may also affect India’s ability to maintain diversified trade relationships and access cheaper sources of fuel.
In the services sector, the Forum said the EU agreement includes significant commitments that bind India to higher levels of liberalisation than in previous trade deals. It expressed concern that easing domestic rules on financial services, senior management and regulatory frameworks could limit the government’s ability to design policies in the public interest. The incorporation of rules aligned with multilateral initiatives that India had previously opposed was described as a significant shift from its long-standing position in global trade negotiations.
The digital economy and intellectual property rights were identified as areas of particular concern due to the lack of publicly available information. The Forum warned that concessions related to data governance, e-commerce rules and intellectual property enforcement could erode policy space, reduce public revenues and restrict access to affordable medicines and seeds. It cautioned that acceptance of obligations beyond existing multilateral commitments could undermine India’s pharmaceutical industry, farmers’ rights and public health safeguards.
The coalition also expressed alarm over what it described as a broader shift in India’s trade and foreign policy alignment, suggesting that language in the India–US joint statement could indicate pressure to align economic and trade policies with US strategic interests. It argued that such an approach could compromise India’s strategic autonomy and weaken its long-standing advocacy for developing-country concerns in multilateral forums.
Citing the continued secrecy surrounding the full texts of the agreements, the Forum demanded immediate disclosure of all schedules, annexes and commitments to enable informed scrutiny by stakeholders and Parliament. It called on the government to pursue a transparent, democratic and development-oriented trade policy that prioritises the interests of farmers, workers and small enterprises, and safeguards India’s policy sovereignty.
Comments