Key disputes over dairy, agriculture and patents cloud trade negotiations.
The proposed trade arrangement between India and the United States faces long odds of advancing in its present form, with senior RSS-linked figures arguing that unless Washington drops its demands on dairy access, agriculture and data exclusivity provisions, the negotiations cannot meaningfully progress.
The assessment comes even as a US trade delegation is expected in India from June 1 to 4 for negotiations aimed at advancing an interim arrangement under the broader Bilateral Trade Agreement framework, the latest in months of sustained engagement between the two sides.
Indian negotiators travelled to Washington in April for talks that officials described as constructive. Trade teams have moved repeatedly between New Delhi and Washington since the start of the year, with both governments publicly asserting that progress is being made.
But senior RSS-linked sources familiar with internal discussions said three issues remain particularly contentious: dairy, agriculture and intellectual property rights, specifically, data exclusivity provisions.
Dairy has repeatedly emerged as among the most politically sensitive components of India-US trade discussions. Opposition within the RSS ecosystem stems from both economic and cultural concerns.
India’s dairy sector is structured around millions of small and marginal producers operating through cooperative-led supply chains, unlike the industrial-scale operations prevalent in the United States. Sources argued that greater market access for highly mechanised American producers could place downward pressure on prices received by Indian farmers and disrupt local procurement ecosystems.
Cultural concerns have further complicated the issue. India has historically maintained certification requirements linked to feed practices for imported dairy products, and sections within the ecosystem continue to object to production practices in parts of the US dairy industry involving animal-derived feed inputs, arguing these conflict with local dietary sensitivities and consumer expectations. This debate has remained unresolved through multiple negotiating rounds.
Agriculture forms the second major sticking point. Sources said there is resistance to commitments that could expose Indian farmers to increased competition from heavily subsidised imports or weaken existing protections.
The concern is structural. Indian agriculture is dominated by small landholdings, fragmented production systems and lower mechanisation levels, while American agriculture operates at larger scales with higher productivity and stronger subsidy support. Sources said wider opening in agriculture could affect sectors ranging from maize and processed foods to other sensitive categories.
Agriculture also remains politically sensitive because of the scale of rural employment dependent on it. India has historically maintained cautious positions on genetically modified agricultural products and has sought to shield food-security-linked sectors from excessive import competition.
The third and perhaps most technically complex concern relates to intellectual property rights, particularly demands around data exclusivity, regulatory protection granted to clinical trial or testing data submitted by innovator companies for obtaining regulatory approvals.
Critics of such provisions argue that if exclusivity periods are introduced or expanded, generic manufacturers may be prevented from relying on already available data for a specified period, even when patent barriers do not exist, in practice, delaying the entry of lower-cost alternatives despite patents having expired or not existing in the first place. Sources said resistance comes from concerns that stronger exclusivity rules could affect India’s generic medicines ecosystem, increase medicine costs and reduce policy flexibility. Similar apprehensions exist in agrochemicals, where stronger protections could raise costs for farmers and affect domestic manufacturing competitiveness.
India currently does not provide standalone statutory data exclusivity protection in the manner sought in several Western trade frameworks. Any movement in that direction would represent a significant policy shift and is expected to invite resistance from sections of industry, public health advocates and ideological organisations.
Political signalling from both sides has remained publicly optimistic. During his India visit, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the objective was to arrive at an arrangement that would be beneficial and sustainable for both countries, as broader strategic ties between New Delhi and Washington continue to deepen.
The sources, however, dismissed the public messaging as negotiating rhetoric and struck a markedly more sombre note.
“The US side can say whatever it wants to say. That is their choice. But it is impossible that this moves ahead in its present form, not unless they stop asking for things India cannot give,” one of the sources said. The sources were unequivocal.
Progress was impossible so long as the US continued to press demands on dairy access, agricultural market opening and data exclusivity, areas where, in their assessment, India had neither the political room nor the policy appetite to concede.
The disagreement, they argued, was not merely about sequencing or timelines but about demands that intersect with politically sensitive sectors where the room for compromise is limited. Unless there is movement on these core areas, repeated rounds of negotiations and public messaging alone may not be sufficient to bridge the gap.
