A Compromised Prime Minister and the Price India Is Being Forced to Pay
A Compromised Prime Minister and the Price India Is Being Forced to Pay
This was not a routine trade adjustment. It was a half-trillion-dollar
trade deal, one of the largest economic agreements India has ever entered into
with the United States. Deals of this magnitude reshape domestic markets,
determine winners and losers for decades, and bind a country to long-term
dependencies. In any functioning democracy, such an agreement demands open
parliamentary debate, scrutiny by both government and opposition, and a clear
public explanation before it is signed.
None of that happened.
The agreement was finalized without meaningful discussion in
Parliament, without a white paper placed before the nation, and without
allowing elected representatives to examine its impact on Indian farmers,
manufacturers, consumers, or India’s strategic interests. This was not
procedural oversight. It was deliberate. Prime Minister Narendra Modi knew that
public debate would expose how unequal the deal was and how heavily it favored
American corporate interests.
Under the arrangement, India agreed to near-zero tariffs on
key U.S. goods and raw materials, while Indian exports continue to face
significant barriers. The beneficiaries are neither ordinary Indians nor
ordinary Americans. They are large corporations with political access, scale,
and influence.
Critically, this deal does not help small American farmers.
It benefits large agribusiness corporations that rely on heavy chemical use,
genetically engineered crops, and industrial farming practices designed for
volume, not health. These corporations are now positioned to flood Indian
markets with engineered food products that raise serious concerns about
long-term health risks, environmental damage, and food sovereignty.
The implications for Indian consumers are serious. Industrial
food and meat systems exported from the United States have already contributed
to rising obesity, chronic disease, and cancer risks at home. Importing these
systems into India threatens public health at scale, burdening a healthcare
system that is already stretched. This is not food security. It is nutritional
compromise.
When Rahul Gandhi attempted to raise these concerns in
Parliament, the response was revealing. Objections followed. Proceedings were
disrupted. The Prime Minister chose not to respond and instead walked out of
the House. Leadership that believes in its decisions does not silence debate.
It confronts it.
The harshest impact will fall on Indian farmers. Already
constrained by patent regimes, corporate seed monopolies, and rising costs,
they now face competition from foreign agribusiness backed by massive subsidies
and industrial science. India’s freedom movement was built on resisting exactly
this kind of economic domination. What colonial laws once imposed by force is
now being accepted through signatures.
There is another unprecedented and deeply troubling aspect to
this deal. For the first time, India has signed an economic agreement that directly
compromises its relationship with a long-standing strategic partner. As part of
this arrangement, India will no longer purchase fuel from Russia. This is not a
minor trade adjustment. It marks a sharp departure from India’s independent
foreign policy, which has historically resisted external pressure in choosing
its economic and energy partners.
Energy security has always been treated as a sovereign
matter. Tying trade agreements to restrictions on fuel purchases from another
nation signals that India’s strategic autonomy is now negotiable. This sets a
dangerous precedent: that India’s foreign relationships can be reshaped not by
national interest, but by external pressure.
The unanswered question is why.
That question becomes sharper in light of the expanding legal
scrutiny of the Adani Group in U.S. courts. While much of the domestic media
remains quiet, these proceedings are well known internationally. The opposition
argues that these cases threaten to expose the nexus between corporate power
and the Modi government, weakening India’s negotiating position abroad.
It is in this context that allegations have emerged that the
United States, under Donald Trump, used this vulnerability as leverage.
According to this claim, trade terms were dictated not to serve American
workers or Indian citizens, but to protect elite interests on both sides. Trump
helped his corporate allies. Modi shielded his. The people were excluded.
Rahul Gandhi had warned months earlier that such a deal would
materialize, predicting that terms would be set abroad and accepted at home.
With the agreement now signed, that warning no longer sounds speculative.
Supporters of the government argue this is the unavoidable
price of global capitalism. That argument collapses under scrutiny. Capitalism
does not require secrecy. Strategic partnerships do not require silencing
Parliament or sacrificing foreign policy independence. Strong leaders negotiate
hard and defend their choices publicly. Compromised leaders avoid scrutiny and
sign quietly.
India did not fight for independence to replace colonial
exploitation with corporate dependency or strategic subservience. Economic and
diplomatic sovereignty determine who bears the cost of growth and who controls
national destiny.
A nation cannot be built by a leader perceived as
compromised. Trust is the foundation of governance, and this agreement has
fractured it economically, politically, and strategically.
The question India must now confront is unavoidable: Was this
deal signed in the national interest or under pressure?
Until that question is answered openly and on the floor of
Parliament, the true cost of this agreement will not be measured only in
dollars, but in long-term damage to India’s democracy, sovereignty, and public
health.
Comments
Post a Comment