Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has levelled a direct charge that the government forced former vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar to step down because of his outspoken support for farmers, igniting a fresh political confrontation over agricultural policy and leadership dynamics at the highest levels of government. Ramesh’s allegations point to deepening tensions between opposition parties and the administration over farmers’ interests and a contentious trade agreement with the United States, placing the circumstances of Dhankhar’s departure back in the spotlight. Ramesh, speaking on social media platform X, said that Dhankhar was “forced to resign” on 21 July 2025 because the government did not approve of his voice in support of farmers, and noted that no formal farewell has been held for the former vice president, whom he described as a “son of a farmer”. The accusation forms part of a broader critique by the opposition of the administration’s handling of farm policy and international trade.
The controversy centres on Dhankhar’s abrupt resignation mid-term. Official records show he cited health reasons in his letter to the president when stepping down from the post he assumed in August 2022, with two years still remaining in his tenure. His departure prompted a vice-presidential election later that year, in which Jagdeep Dhankhar’s successor was chosen.
Opposition figures such as Ramesh have criticised the government’s narrative around Dhankhar’s resignation, framing it as symptomatic of a broader marginalisation of dissenting voices on agricultural issues. “This exposes the true colours of the prime minister — who betrayed the interests of lakhs of farmers by agreeing to the trade deal with the United States,” Ramesh wrote on X. His comments reflect sustained opposition critique of the agreement, which they argue could undermine domestic agricultural sectors by opening markets to foreign produce.
The government, for its part, has rejected the claim that Dhankhar was forced out because of his stance on farmers, maintaining that farmers’ interests are safeguarded under the terms of the India-US trade deal and dismissing the opposition’s framing as politically motivated. Ministers have reiterated that Dhankhar’s resignation was a personal decision rooted in health concerns, and highlighted provisions within the trade agreement intended to protect agricultural stakeholders. Government officials have pointed to mechanisms such as safeguard measures that could be invoked if import surges threaten domestic producers, asserting these will ensure continued support for farm incomes.
Political analysts say these exchanges are part of a larger battle over narrative control ahead of key parliamentary sessions. The trade pact has been seized upon by opposition leaders as a galvanising issue, contending that it could erode protections for farmers and rural economies. They argue that Dhankhar’s vocal questioning of such policies, including public remarks challenging government commitments to agricultural welfare, may have put him at odds with the leadership’s strategic priorities. Critics of the government have cited earlier parliamentary interventions by Dhankhar in which he pressed ministers on fulfilment of promises to farming communities, suggesting his criticisms were substantive and widely noted.
Supporters of the administration counter that Dhankhar’s role in presiding over the upper house of parliament was marked by routine engagement with government and opposition alike, and that characterising his exit as forced undermines the norms of governance. They have underscored his public statements upon resignation expressing gratitude for the opportunity to serve and a desire to focus on health, and they have stressed that official processes were followed in the succession. Government defenders argue that speculation about internal discord distracts from substantive debate on policy implementation and legislative priorities.
The broader debate over agricultural policy has extended beyond this exchange, energising civil society groups and farmer organisations. Many in the farming community have voiced anxieties about market liberalisation and its potential effects on livelihoods, while others call for constructive engagement with the government to address price volatility and input cost challenges. Ramesh’s remarks have resonated with these concerns, amplifying criticism of what opposition figures cast as a disconnect between policymaking and grassroots realities.