Opposition MPs in Rajya Sabha Question Centre Over India–U.S. Trade Deal
Leaders urge government to safeguard farmers’ interests, seek clarity on U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks on India’s oil imports
Opposition Members of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday (February 3, 2026) mounted a strong critique of the Union Government over the proposed India–U.S. trade deal, urging the Centre to ensure that the agreement does not adversely impact Indian farmers, domestic industries, or the country’s long-term economic and strategic interests.
The concerns were raised during the second day of the discussion in the Upper House on the motion thanking President Droupadi Murmu for her address to a joint sitting of Parliament. Several Opposition leaders questioned both the substance of the proposed agreement and the manner in which its announcement was made, pointing out that key details were first revealed by U.S. President Donald Trump rather than by the Indian government on the floor of Parliament.
Congress MP Rajani Ashokrao Patil said reports suggesting that India may open up its agriculture sector to greater access for U.S. companies had caused anxiety among farmers’ groups across the country. “If the government does not protect the interests of farmers and opens up the agricultural market without adequate safeguards, the consequences could be far-reaching,” she said.
Referring to Mr. Trump’s claim that bilateral trade between the two countries would touch $500 billion, Ms. Patil said Parliament had a right to know the terms under which such a large-scale agreement was being pursued. “It is essential for this House and for the nation to know what discussions the Prime Minister held with Mr. Trump, what assurances were given, and what commitments have been made on behalf of the Indian people,” she added.
She also sought clarification on the U.S. President’s statement that India would begin purchasing oil from the United States and Venezuela instead of Russia. Describing Russia as a long-standing strategic partner of India, she asked whether the Centre had taken a conscious policy decision to realign the country’s energy imports and, if so, whether Parliament had been consulted on such a significant shift.
Trinamool Congress MP Ritabrata Banerjee accused the government of yielding to what he described as the “economic expansionism” of the United States. He alleged that India was being compelled to accept terms dictated by Washington, particularly in areas such as energy procurement, agricultural imports, and market access for foreign companies. “We must ask whether this agreement strengthens India’s self-reliance or makes us more dependent on external forces,” he said.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader John Brittas focused his criticism on the process followed by the government, saying that major policy decisions should be communicated to Parliament before being announced on social media platforms. “The healthy convention of this country is that any important decision taken while Parliament is in session should be announced on the floor of the House,” he said. “Instead, we hear about a trade deal of this magnitude first on a social media platform. Where is this country heading?”
Taking a sharp dig at what he described as external influence on India’s energy policy, Mr. Brittas added, “Who is the Petroleum Minister of this country? Today, it seems as though someone sitting in Washington is telling us where to buy our oil from—whether it is Iran, Venezuela, or Russia. This raises serious questions about our economic sovereignty.”
Indian Union Muslim League MP Abdul Wahab also expressed concern over the sequence of events, noting that the U.S. President had publicly spoken about the deal before any detailed statement was made by the Indian government. He argued that such major policy developments should be first placed before Parliament and the people of the country, rather than being confirmed through international announcements.
Congress MP Ranjeet Ranjan highlighted the continuing challenges faced by farmers, pointing out that key recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee on ensuring fair prices and income security for cultivators were yet to be fully implemented. “On the one hand, farmers are still waiting for long-promised reforms and support measures. On the other, the government is moving ahead with a major trade pact that could open the doors to foreign agricultural products,” she said. “The Centre must take this House, the Opposition, and the farming community into confidence and clearly explain how their interests will be protected.”
She added that transparency was crucial in building public trust and ensuring that any international agreement aligned with the country’s broader development goals.
Responding to the Opposition’s criticism, Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora defended the government’s negotiating strategy, arguing that India had secured comparatively favourable tariff terms in a competitive global trade environment. “The tariff imposed on China is 34%, on Bangladesh and Vietnam it is 20%, and on Indonesia it is 19%,” he said. “In contrast, India’s tariff stands at 18%, which shows that our negotiators have been able to secure a better deal than many of our competitors.”
Mr. Deora also said that deeper trade ties with the United States could open up new opportunities for Indian exporters, attract greater foreign investment, and strengthen India’s position in global supply chains.
The debate reflected the growing political and public scrutiny surrounding the proposed agreement, particularly its potential impact on agriculture, energy security, domestic manufacturing, and India’s strategic autonomy. While the government has maintained that the deal will boost economic growth and strengthen bilateral ties, the Opposition has called for greater transparency and parliamentary oversight before any final commitments are made.
As discussions continue, the trade pact is expected to remain a key point of contention in the ongoing Budget Session, with both sides pressing their arguments on how best to balance international cooperation with national economic priorities.
.png)
