Trump wants India to buy US corn - but here's why it probably won't

**Why Won't India Buy American Corn?**

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently questioned India's trade policies. He criticized India's market restrictions and urged it to open its agricultural market. Lutnick suggested that India should consider quotas or limits on imports.

Agriculture is a key issue in the escalating US-China trade war. Tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods, will begin on April 2. President Trump has called India a "tariff king" and a "big abuser" of trade.

Washington has long sought greater access to India's farm sector. They view it as an untapped market. However, India protects its agriculture for food security and small farmers' interests.

India's transformation from food-deficient to food-surplus is notable. In the 1950s and '60s, it relied on food aid but later became self-sufficient. Today, India is the world's largest milk producer and exports various agricultural products.

Despite these gains, Indian agriculture faces challenges in productivity and infrastructure. Global price volatility and climate change further complicate matters. Farmers often work with less than a hectare of land compared to over 46 hectares in the US.

Low productivity is evident; agriculture employs nearly half of India's workforce but contributes only 15% to GDP. In contrast, less than 2% of Americans depend on farming jobs.

India maintains high tariffs on farm imports to protect local farmers. These tariffs range from zero to 150%. The average tariff on US farm products is 37.7%, while it's only 5.3% for Indian goods entering the US.

Bilateral farm trade between India and the US stands at $8 billion (£6.2 billion). India mainly exports rice, shrimp, honey, and spices while importing nuts and fruits from the US.

As both countries negotiate a trade deal, experts say Washington wants larger agricultural exports like wheat and corn to reduce its $45 billion trade deficit with India.

Experts argue that pushing India to lower tariffs ignores global agricultural disparities. The US heavily subsidizes its agriculture through crop insurance programs.

Some subsidies exceed production costs by over 100%, creating an uneven playing field for Indian farmers. Farming supports over 700 million people in India—nearly half its population.

The differences between US commercial agriculture and India's subsistence farming are significant. Abhijit Das notes that this impacts millions of livelihoods versus agribusiness interests in the US.

India's agricultural struggles also stem from internal issues like underfunding—receiving less than 6% of total investment meant for growth infrastructure.

To protect livelihoods, the government imposes duties on key crops like wheat and rice but lacks confidence among farmers about future prices.

Four years ago, many farmers protested for better prices and legal guarantees for staples like wheat and rice. Even well-off farmers feel uncertain about their futures amid these challenges.

Trade negotiations add complexity as India seeks agreements that balance both nations' interests in agriculture without harming local farmers' livelihoods or food security.

Experts advise that India should resist pressure from the US to open its agriculture sector too much. This could disrupt rural economies and flood markets with cheap imports.

In the long run, experts suggest modernizing Indian agriculture could boost competitiveness and exports significantly—potentially generating surpluses sufficient for global needs.

Mr Dhar believes that current pressures highlight India's need for investment in productive capacity within agriculture while negotiating carefully with Washington without destabilizing local farming systems.

Ultimately, India's challenge lies in negotiating effectively while protecting its rural economy—a balancing act crucial for sustainable growth in global trade relations.