Why India must classify crops before negotiating trade deals
This is my second article inspired by thePrint’s unbiased YouTube videos in recent times.[1]
India’s agricultural trade policy decisions are among the most politically and objectively explosive.
A rice export triggers consumer outrage.
A rice export ban triggers farmer backlash.
An edible oil import duty cut triggers farmer fury.
A pulse import rumour triggers political criticism.
Every decision is branded either anti-farmer or anti-people.
The truth is: most of our farm trade decisions are neither.
They are just necessary temporary tactical decisions.
India needs a clearly articulated National Interest Agricultural Trade Doctrine.
This will ensure farmers’ income protection, consumer price stability, ecological sustainability, and global negotiating leverage.
The core confusion: We treat all crops as equal
We react to agricultural trade politically, not rationally.
Rice, oil, sugar, and spices are all agricultural commodities. But they are not all the same.
Every crop sits at the intersection of four national interest axes:
- Food security
- Farmer income
- Import dependence
- Ecological stress
If we classify crops along these lines, our trade decisions won’t be ad-hoc, defensive, and politically noisy.
A 4-bucket national interest classification
India can formally classify agricultural commodities into four strategic categories.
1. Strategic food security crops
Exports risky. Imports could hurt farmers.
These are mass consumption staples that determine food inflation and political stability.
Examples: Non-Basmati rice, wheat, and pulses.
Policy doctrine should be clear: “Export only surplus. Import only under stress”.
Exporting shortage is anti-poor.
Over-importing is anti-farmer.
This is not protectionism. This is sovereign food security management.
2. Farmer income champion crops
Exports beneficial. Imports harmful.
These are India’s agricultural strength sectors: high value, high income, globally competitive.
Examples: Basmati rice, spices, tea, coffee, and marine products.
Here, the doctrine flips: “Export aggressively. Protect domestic producers”.
If we hesitate here, we are not protecting consumers – we are suppressing farmer prosperity.
These sectors should anchor our FTA negotiations.
3. Import dependence risk crops
Imports are necessary during shortages, but structurally harmful if prolonged.
India’s hidden vulnerability lies here.
Examples: Edible oils, oilseeds, animal feed, proteins.
We import not by choice, but by structural weakness.
Cheap imports may control inflation today, but they mortgage farmers’ capability tomorrow.
Policy must recognize: “Every edible oil import is a signal of domestic production failure”.
Import management must therefore be paired with mission-mode self-reliance.
4. Water & ecology stress crops
Exports environmentally expensive.
Some crops drain aquifers, degrade soil, and distort cropping patterns.
Examples: Sugar, water-intensive paddy in arid zones.
Exporting them is equivalent to exporting groundwater.
India must evolve the courage to say: “Not every export that earns forex strengthens the nation”.
Climate commitments, water tables, and sustainability must shape trade policy here.
Illustrative case: Pulses in the policy grey zone
Take pulses, a sector that recently figured in India-US trade discussions.
India is the world’s largest producer and consumer of pulses, yet it remains a major importer.
Because of demand-supply gaps.
For good reasons, as we’re moving up the value chain from mere food consumer to nutrition consumer.
This makes pulses neither a pure food security crop nor a pure import-substitution crop.
Pulses belong to a hybrid category where:
- Imports stabilize prices in the short term
- Domestic production expansion is a strategic necessity in the long term
- Without such classification, every tariff negotiation appears politically controversial rather than economically and rationally calibrated.
Reframing the political narrative
Once classified and made public, agricultural trade decisions become intelligible, even when politically inconvenient.
A simple public interest grid can guide communication:
This shifts discourse from ideology to rational thinking and national balance.
Negotiating leverage with the West
Classification is not just domestic policy; it is geopolitical capital.
India can negotiate with clarity:
- Offer access where it doesn’t hurt us: E.g., Almonds, processed foods, niche fruits
- Protect livelihoods in sensitive surplus sectors: E.g., Dairy, rice, wheat
- Calibrate access in import-dependent sectors: E.g., Edible oils, Pulses
- Demand reciprocity where we are strong: E.g., Basmati rice, spices, marine exports
Trade negotiations become strategic exchanges, not tariff firefights, nor politically risky.
Export jobs, not just crops
A second doctrinal layer is value addition.
We must ask of every export:
Is India exporting raw produce or livelihoods?
The doctrine should be: “India should export after adding value as far as possible”.
Institutionalizing the doctrine
To prevent ad-hoc bans and knee-jerk duty cuts, India needs a permanent institutional mechanism:
A National Agricultural Trade Council comprising:
- Agriculture Ministry
- Commerce Ministry
- NITI Aayog
- Water & climate experts
- Farmer bodies
It should publish:
- Crop classification lists
- Export/import trigger thresholds
- Buffer norms
Transparency reduces protests. Predictability strengthens credibility.
Strategic payoffs
A classified agricultural trade doctrine delivers multi-dimensional gains:
- For farmers: Stable incomes, export clarity.
- For consumers: Lower inflation shocks.
- For ecology: Water and soil preservation.
- For diplomacy: Sharper FTA leverage.
- For politics: Fewer “anti-farmer vs anti-people” flashpoints in the form of agitations and political theatrics
What India needs
India must move from reactive farm trade management to a strategic doctrine.
Because: “We cannot negotiate well globally if we are confused domestically”.
And more fundamentally: “India must export to maximize farmer prosperity, import to stabilize consumers, and regulate trade to protect food and ecological sovereignty”.
Until we classify our agriculture through a national interest lens, every trade decision will look political, even when it is strategic and unavoidable.
It is time we stopped managing headlines and started managing national interest.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
Reference:
[1] India-US trade deal & possible effect on farmers:Sifting through data on agriculture exports,imports – Feb 11, 2026, YouTube
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Is every farm trade anti-farmer? - February 13, 2026
- We can become more competitive, by not exporting inefficiency - February 12, 2026
- The Amit Shah we don’t know - February 8, 2026
