Why not even buy India from American corn?

This is the question raised by the Minister of Commerce, Howard Lottenic recently criticism Commercial policies in India, with criticism of their restrictions on the market.

In another interview, Lootnick India was accused of banning American farmers He urged her to open its agricultural market – suggesting shares or borders as a possible approach.

Agriculture is a major battlefield for US President Donald Trump Trade war escalationWith mutual tariffs or mutual definitions of kicking on April 2.

Definitions are dedicated taxes on goods imported from other countries. Trump has repeatedly described as “the king of tariffs” and “the great aggressor” of trade relations.

For years, Washington has pushed more access to the farmer sector in India, and sees it as a major market. But India strongly protected it, noting food security, ways to live and the interests of millions of small farmers.

The conversion of India from a nation that suffers from food lack into food strength is certainly one of the biggest success stories.

In the fifties and sixties of the last century, the country relied on food aid to feed its residents, but a series of agricultural breaches changed this. India has become self -sufficient in foodstuffs, and has become the largest milk producer in the world. Rapid growth in gardening, poultry, and water biology raising the food basket.

Today, India is not only 1.4 billion people, but as the largest largest source of agriculture in the world, as well as charging grains, fruits and dairy around the world.

However, despite these main gains, Indian agriculture still fails productivity, infrastructure and market access. It adds global prices and climate change to the challenge. Ghor spoles are late for the best global. The problem increases the land that increases the problem – Indian farmers work with less than a hectare on average, while their American counterparts have more than 46 hectares in 2020.

It is not surprising that the productivity remains low – agriculture employs nearly half of the workforce in India but it represents only 15 % of GDP. In comparison, less than 2 % of the US population depends on agriculture. Through limited manufacturing functions, more people stumble in low -wage farm, which is an extraordinary trend for a developing country.

This structural imbalance also constitutes India’s commercial policies. Despite the surplus of the farm, India maintains high tariffs to protect its farmers from cheap imports. Maintains a moderate to high tariff – ranging from zero to 150 % – on farm imports.

The average weighted tariff – the average service rate for each imported product – in India on American agricultural products is 37.7 %, compared to 5.3 % on Indian goods in the United States, according to the GTRI’s World Trade Research Initiative (GTRI).

Bilateral agricultural trade between India and the United States is modest, at a price of only $ 8 billion (6.2 billion pounds).

India mainly exports rice, shrimp, honey, vegetable extracts, castor oil and black pepper, while the United States sends almonds, nuts, pistachios, apples and lentils.

But as the two countries work on a The commercial dealExperts say Washington now wants to pay exports of “large” farms – wheat, cotton, corn and corn – to narrow its trade deficit of $ 45 billion with India.

“They are not looking to export berries and things this time. The game is much larger,” says Biswajit Dhar, commercial expert from the Social Research Council.

Experts argue that pushing India to reduce farm tariffs, reduce prices and openness to GM crops (GM) and ignore the primary asymmetry in global agriculture.

The United States, for example, greatly supports its cultivation and protects farmers through crop insurance.

“In some cases, American subsidies exceed 100 % of production costs, creating an uneven stadium that can destroy the farmers of small holders in India,” says Ajay Srivastava of GTRI.

Agriculture is the backbone of India, and the support of more than 700 million people, or nearly half of the country’s population.

“The main thing to remember is that agriculture in the two countries is completely different,” says Abhigit Das, the former head of the World Trade Organization Center at the Indian Foreign Trade Institute.

“The United States has commercial agriculture, while India depends on intense agriculture and living. It is a matter of ways to live millions of Indians in exchange for American agricultural business.”

But the agricultural challenges of India are not only external. Mr. Dar says that many of the sector’s struggles are “its actions.” Agriculture has always suffered from a lack of financing, as it has obtained less than 6 % of the total investment in India – the funds allocated to infrastructure, machinery and other long -term assets necessary for growth.

To protect millions of livelihoods, the government protects the main crops such as wheat, rice and dairy with import duties and price support. He says, “But this does not inspire confidence.”

Four years ago, Tens of thousands of farmers protests Claiming better prices and legal guarantees for minimal government support for food prices, especially wheat and rice.

“Even farmers who sell optics who sell oceans do not see a shift any time soon. If they feel this way, imagine the plight of the subsistence farmers,” says Mr. Dar.

Besides local discontent, commercial negotiations add another layer of complexity.

Mr. Das says that the real challenge of India is how “you have an agreement with the United States taking into account the American export interest in agriculture with the balance of India’s interests in the farm sector.”

So what is the way forward?

“India should not surrender to the pressure of the United States to open the agricultural sector,” says Mr. Srivastava. He warns that doing this would disrupt millions of livelihoods, threaten food security and flood local markets with cheap imports.

“India must give priority to its national interests and protect its rural economy. Commercial cooperation should not come at the expense of farmers, food sovereignty, or politics independence.”

In the long run, experts say India must update its cultivation, making agriculture more reproductive, and becomes more competitive to increase exports. UNUPOM KAUSIK from AGRI -Business Olam estimates that with higher global revenue, India can generate excess of 200 million metric tons of rice – enough to provide commercial hunger and global fighting.

“In some way, Trump keeps a mirror for us. We have done little to invest in the productive capacity of agriculture,” says Mr. Dar. “At the present time, buying time is the best strategy – perhaps providing US cheaper imports to industrial goods as a barter.”

But for the best result, he says, India will have to “play a charming ball. Tell us mainly – we are open to negotiations on other fronts, but do not destabilize our cultivation.”

It is clear that the challenge of India is to negotiate from the position of strength – as it provided enough to keep Washington on the table while protecting the rural spine. After all, in global trade as in agriculture, timing and patience often result in the best harvest. The jury is outside whether Trump is ready to wait.