LAHORE: Indian farmers under the banner of the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha are back on the streets against the proposed India-US trade deal, alleging that the deal would harm farmers, traders, laborers, and youth.

The demonstrations were marked not only by slogans against the central government but also by the burning of effigies of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, reflecting the intensity of opposition among participating groups. Under the banner of the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), protesters also directed their anger toward the visiting US trade delegation, urging it to leave and warning that the proposed agreement could inflict lasting damage on Indian agriculture.

From Amritsar to Bathinda, from Ferozepur to Gurdaspur, from Hoshiarpur to Jalandhar, from Kapurthala to Ludhiana, from Moga to Patiala, and from Rupnagar to Sangrur, the message remained remarkably consistent: cancel the proposed India-US trade agreement.

These are not the hallmarks of a routine demonstration. They are the indicators of a growing confrontation between India's agrarian community and the state, a confrontation that many believed had subsided after the repeal of the controversial farm laws.

At the heart of the agitation lies a simple but consequential question: how can India's predominantly small and marginal farmers compete with heavily subsidized and large-scale agricultural producers from advanced economies?

Farmer leaders argue that American agriculture enjoys substantial government support, extensive mechanization, and economies of scale that are simply beyond the reach of most Indian cultivators. The average Indian farmer operates on a small landholding and is already grappling with rising production costs, mounting debt, fertilizer shortages and uncertain returns. In such circumstances, many fear that greater market access for foreign agricultural products could place additional pressure on already fragile farm incomes.

Particular concern has been expressed regarding the potential influx of imported agricultural commodities, including pulses, fruits, vegetables, dairy products and other food items. Protest leaders warn that increased imports could undermine domestic producers and weaken local agricultural markets. They further allege that current trade policies prioritize multinational corporations and global commercial interests over the welfare of farmers and rural communities.

Yet the trade agreement represents only one layer of a much broader set of concerns.

Farmers have renewed longstanding demands for a legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all crops, relief from agricultural debt, expanded crop insurance coverage and pension support for elderly farmers. They have also raised objections to fertilizer shortages and have demanded the withdrawal of the Electricity Amendment Bill 2025 and the Seed Bill 2025. Opposition to the installation of smart electricity meters has likewise emerged as a prominent issue within the movement.

The protest leaders insist that the consequences of these policies extend beyond farmers alone. In their view, agricultural laborers, small traders, employees, and ordinary citizens whose livelihoods depend upon the rural economy also stand to be affected. The movement is therefore being framed not merely as a farmers' agitation but as a broader defence of rural economic interests.

Another significant dimension of the protests concerns the process through which agricultural decisions are made. Farmer organizations accuse the government of repeating a pattern that they believe characterized the now-repealed farm laws: pursuing major policy changes without meaningful consultation with stakeholders. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, it has become a recurring theme throughout the demonstrations and reflects a deeper trust deficit between sections of the farming community and policymakers.

Farmer leaders argue that years of unfulfilled commitments have deepened mistrust between the government and the agricultural community. That mistrust, they contend, is now spilling back onto the streets.

The significance of the protests therefore lies not only in their scale but also in what they reveal. The coordinated demonstrations across 21 districts suggest that concerns over trade, agricultural reform and rural livelihoods continue to resonate deeply within Punjab's farming community. More importantly, they highlight what many participants describe as a widening rift between the state and the agrarian sector.

The government, for its part, views international trade agreements as important instruments of economic growth and strategic engagement. Supporters of such agreements argue that they can unlock new opportunities, strengthen commercial ties and enhance India's global economic position.

The challenge, however, lies in reconciling these objectives with the concerns of millions of small and marginal farmers who fear they may bear the costs of economic transformation without receiving adequate protection or support.

That is the central question raised by the protests unfolding across Punjab today. Can India pursue ambitious global economic integration while ensuring that the interests of its agricultural communities are not compromised in the process?

Until that question is convincingly answered, the voices emerging from Punjab's fields are unlikely to fade. If anything, the scale and intensity of the latest mobilization suggest that they are becoming harder to ignore.

Farmers Protests

Indian farmers are back on the streets protesting India-US trade deal