Farmers’ organisations have announced a series of protests across the country next week, criticising the proposed interim trade agreement framework between New Delhi and Washington and accusing the government of exposing agriculture to undue foreign corporate influence.A joint statement issued on Saturday by the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, its non-political breakaway faction and the All India Kisan Sabha said the framework outlined in a joint declaration between the two governments amounted to what they described as a “total surrender” of the farm sector to large multinational corporations based in the United States. The groups also demanded the immediate resignation of Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, alleging that the negotiating stance had ignored longstanding concerns of cultivators and farm workers.
The farmers’ bodies said the proposed trade framework, presented as an interim step toward a broader bilateral agreement, raised alarm over market access commitments, intellectual property provisions and regulatory changes that could affect seeds, inputs, procurement and price support mechanisms. They argued that any move to lower tariffs, dilute quality controls or alter domestic subsidy structures would disproportionately benefit global agribusiness firms while undermining small and marginal farmers.
Planned protests signal widening opposition to the trade framework, with demonstrations, district-level meetings and symbolic actions scheduled in multiple states. Organisers said the protests would be coordinated through existing farmer networks and allied unions, reflecting a broader mobilisation beyond the groups that led earlier farm agitations. While details of the demonstrations are still being finalised, leaders indicated the focus would be on educating rural communities about the implications of the deal and pressing state governments to pass resolutions opposing it.
The criticism comes amid efforts by New Delhi and Washington to deepen economic ties, streamline supply chains and expand bilateral trade. Officials on both sides have framed the interim framework as a pragmatic step to address market access barriers and regulatory frictions, while leaving sensitive sectors for further discussion. The joint declaration referenced cooperation in agriculture, digital trade and standards, though it stopped short of publishing a detailed tariff schedule or sector-specific commitments.
Farm unions contend that the lack of transparency is itself a concern. They argue that previous trade negotiations have often proceeded without adequate parliamentary scrutiny or stakeholder consultation, leading to outcomes that prioritise export-oriented growth over domestic livelihood security. The groups reiterated their long-standing demand that agriculture be kept outside trade agreements unless farmer organisations are formally consulted and protective safeguards are written into law.
The All India Kisan Sabha said the framework risked accelerating corporate concentration in seeds, fertilisers and food processing. It warned that stronger intellectual property protections for agricultural inputs could raise costs for farmers and limit access to affordable seeds, while changes to sanitary and phytosanitary standards might pressure domestic regulators to align with external benchmarks that favour large exporters.
The Samyukt Kisan Morcha and its non-political faction also linked the trade framework to broader concerns about food security and federalism. They said agriculture remains a state subject, and any commitments affecting procurement, minimum support prices or public distribution should involve state governments. The statement accused the Centre of bypassing this principle by negotiating commitments that could constrain future policy choices at both state and national levels.
Government officials have not publicly responded to the demand for the commerce minister’s resignation. In earlier statements on trade talks, the ministry has maintained that negotiations aim to protect core national interests while expanding export opportunities. Officials have also stressed that no agreement would compromise food security or farmer welfare, and that any final deal would undergo internal vetting before implementation.