Free Trade Agreements pose both opportunities and threats to Indian farmers. Critically analyse in the context of recent Centre–State outreach efforts.

India has signed nine FTAs covering 27 countries, including the UK, UAE, Oman and New Zealand [1]. At the Rabi conference in September 2026, the Centre said it would hold talks with States so that farmers learn about FTA benefits [2]. FTAs do open new export markets. However, the gains and the risks fall unevenly across farmers, so the outreach needs to go beyond simple publicity.

Opportunities

• Market access: Under the India–UK CETA, over 95% of agricultural tariff lines get zero-duty entry. Farm exports are projected to rise by over 50% within three years [3].
• Rewards for high-value crops: Spices, fruits, processed foods and seafood gain the most. This pushes farmers to diversify away from surplus cereals [3].
• Predictable access to the US: Indian farm goods worth about USD 1.035 billion are assured a zero reciprocal tariff [4].
• Built-in safeguards: Dairy, cereals, GM food, maize and pulses sit in exclusion lists [4][5].

Threats

• Import competition: RCEP would have cut dairy duties to zero against New Zealand and Australia. India withdrew in 2019 after strong opposition from farmers and the dairy sector [6].
• Indirect substitution: India is cutting tariffs on US DDGS (animal feed) and soybean oil [7]. This could lower demand and prices for domestic maize and soybean, even though the grains themselves stay protected.
• Uneven gains: Export-ready, irrigated and organised producers benefit most. Rainfed smallholders, already facing a ~12% rainfall deficit this year [2], often lack grading facilities, cold chains and the ability to meet food-safety standards abroad.
• Federal mismatch: Agriculture is a State subject (List II, Entry 14), but treaties and foreign trade are Union subjects (List I, Entries 14 and 41). States bear the adjustment costs without a formal role in negotiations.

Assessing the Centre–State outreach

• Strength: Briefing States region by region [2] can connect export-oriented crops to specific zero-duty markets.
• Limitation: A campaign that talks only about "benefits" risks playing down import risks. It also cannot replace State participation before negotiations begin.

In short, FTAs are neither automatically good nor bad for farmers. The outcome depends on farmers' capacity to compete and on how well sensitive sectors are protected. The way forward is to:

• consult States before negotiations;
• build FPO-led export clusters in line with the Agriculture Export Policy, 2018;
• monitor import surges and use safeguard duties when they occur.

Together these steps would make trade openness serve farmers' incomes and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).