Congress slams India-US trade pact as ‘imbalanced’, flags risks to farmers

Congress criticised the Centre over the reported India-US trade agreement, calling it one-sided and risky for farmers. Leaders including Jairam Ramesh and Manish Tewari demanded transparency, highlighting concerns over tariff differences, agricultural impact, and the government’s handling of parliamentary proceedings

New Delhi: The Congress on Sunday launched a sharp attack on the Centre over the reported India–US trade understanding, with senior leaders alleging that the proposed arrangement is “one-sided”, detrimental to farmers, and amounts to yielding under pressure rather than securing a balanced deal.

Speaking to media, Congress General Secretary and Rajya Sabha member Jairam Ramesh warned that the agreement would lead to immediate liberalisation of imports while offering uncertain export gains in the distant future. “Imports will happen now, exports after 20 years — what is the point?” he asked, arguing that a genuine deal must be based on balanced give-and-take.

---

He also criticised what he described as an uneven tariff structure, noting that the United States frequently revises duties while India appears to be making significant concessions. Ramesh said anxiety among farmers across states — including Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra — reflects fears that the agreement could adversely impact agriculture and rural livelihoods.

Echoing similar concerns, Congress MP and former union Minister Manish Tewari questioned reports that the US may impose a 10–15 per cent tariff on Indian goods even as India has reduced duties to zero on around 70 items. “If we are reducing tariffs to zero while they continue to impose duties, the government must clarify what kind of trade deal this is,” he said, calling for transparency in negotiations.

Ramesh further asserted that opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, were raising concerns based on facts rather than political rhetoric. “When you give more and receive very little, that cannot be called an agreement,” he said.

He also criticised the government over the functioning of Parliament, stating that ensuring smooth proceedings is primarily the government’s responsibility. He alleged that disruptions were being allowed while “baseless and offensive” remarks against opposition leaders and former Prime Ministers went unchecked.