Following the release of the draft agreement, several farmers’ organizations have expressed serious concerns and are preparing for a nationwide protest starting February 12. Farmers’ apprehensions are not limited to tariff concessions on soybean oil, grains, or apples. These concerns are about trust, transparency, and the future of Indian agriculture. While the government repeatedly assures that agriculture and the dairy sector will be protected, the agreement includes provisions to reduce tariffs on various agricultural and food products and remove non-tariff barriers, which has heightened farmers’ anxiety. Indian Agriculture Trapped in Global Geopolitics | Countercurrents

Previous free trade agreements with the European Union and New Zealand led to a surge in cheap imports, adversely affecting local producers. the experience of many countries in the Global South shows that FTAs often benefit multinational corporations, exporters, and advanced economies, while small farmers, local industries, and informal workers suffer.

This agreement is not only economic but also political. Midterm elections are approaching in the United States, and agriculture is a powerful political sector there. The trade war with China significantly affected American farmers and reduced export markets. Therefore, the Trump administration needs new markets. With a population of 1.4 billion, India represents a massive market for the United States. Thus, a trade agreement with India is an important part of U.S. political strategy. Reducing rural discontent and satisfying the farm lobby is politically crucial for the Trump administration.

The agreement also raises serious concerns about genetically modified (GM) crops. American agriculture is heavily dependent on GM crops, whereas India has social, environmental, and health-related concerns regarding GM crops. If free trade facilitates the entry of GM food products, it could undermine food sovereignty.

by Vikas Parashram Meshram

09/02/2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR7BWMWX9YQ US

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/02/united-states-india-joint-statement/

Full text from  US website:The United States of America (United States) and India are pleased to announce that they have reached a framework for an Interim Agreement regarding reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade (Interim Agreement). Today’s framework reaffirms the countries’ commitment to the broader U.S.-India Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) negotiations, launched by President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on February 13, 2025, which will include additional market access commitments and support more resilient supply chains. The Interim Agreement between the United States and India will represent a historic milestone in our countries’ partnership, demonstrating a common commitment to reciprocal and balanced trade based on mutual interests and concrete outcomes.

Key terms of the Interim Agreement between the United States and India will include:

    India will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods and a wide range of U.S. food and agricultural products, including dried distillers’ grains (DDGs), red sorghum for animal feed, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits, and additional products.

    The United States will apply a reciprocal tariff rate of 18 percent under Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025 (Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits), as amended, on originating goods of India, including textile and apparel, leather and footwear, plastic and rubber, organic chemicals, home décor, artisanal products, and certain machinery, and, subject to the successful conclusion of the Interim Agreement, will remove the reciprocal tariff on a wide range of goods identified in the Potential Tariff Adjustments for Aligned Partners Annex to Executive Order 14346 of September 5, 2025 (Modifying the Scope of Reciprocal Tariffs and Establishing Procedures for Implementing Trade and Security Agreements), as amended, including generic pharmaceuticals, gems and diamonds, and aircraft parts.

    The United States will also remove tariffs on certain aircraft and aircraft parts of India imposed to eliminate threats to national security found in Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), as amended; Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), as amended; and Proclamation 10962 of July 30, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Copper Into the United States).  Similarly, consistent with U.S. national security requirements, India will receive a preferential tariff rate quota for automotive parts subject to the tariff imposed to eliminate threats to national security found in Proclamation 9888 of May 17, 2019 (Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States), as amended.  Contingent on the findings of the U.S. Section 232 investigation of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, India will receive negotiated outcomes with respect to generic pharmaceuticals and ingredients.

    The United States and India commit to provide each other preferential market access in sectors of respective interest on a sustained basis.

    The United States and India will establish rules of origin that ensure that the benefits of theAgreement accrue predominately to the United States and India. 

    The United States and India will address non-tariff barriers that affect bilateral trade. India agrees to address long-standing barriers to the trade in U.S. medical devices; eliminate restrictive import licensing procedures that delay market access for, or impose quantitative restrictions on, U.S. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) goods; and determine, with a view towards a positive outcome, within six months of entry into force of the Agreement whether U.S.-developed or international standards, including testing requirements, are acceptable for the purposes of U.S. exports entering the Indian market in identified sectors. Recognizing the importance of working together to resolve long-standing concerns, India also agrees to address long-standing non-tariff barriers to the trade in U.S. food and agricultural products.

    For the purposes of enhancing ease of compliance with applicable technical regulations, the United States and India intend to discuss their respective standards and conformity assessment procedures for mutually agreed sectors. 

    In the event of any changes to the agreed upon tariffs of either country, the United States and India agree that the other country may modify its commitments.

    The United States and India will work towards further expanding market access opportunities through the negotiations of the BTA. The United States affirms that it intends to take into consideration, during the negotiations of the BTA, India’s request that the United States continue to work to lower tariffs on Indian goods.

    The United States and India agree to strengthen economic security alignment to enhance supply chain resilience and innovation through complementary actions to address non- market policies of third parties, as well as cooperation on inbound and outbound investment reviews and export controls.

    India intends to purchase $500 billion of U.S. energy products, aircraft and aircraft parts, precious metals, technology products, and coking coal over the next 5 years. India and the United States will significantly increase trade in technology products, including Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) and other goods used in data centers, and expand joint technology cooperation.

    The United States and India commit to address discriminatory or burdensome practices and other barriers to digital trade and to set a clear pathway to achieve robust, ambitious, and mutually beneficial digital trade rules as part of the BTA.

The United States and India will promptly implement this framework and work towards finalizing the Interim Agreement with a view to concluding a mutually beneficial BTA consistent with the roadmap agreed in the Terms of Reference BTA consistent with the roadmap agreed in the Terms of Reference.

https://newint.org/special/arms-trade ‘How to stop the arms trade’ is a new series from New Internationalist that explores these questions and more through a combination of in-depth articles, newsletters, discussion events and podcast episodes.

The arms trade is global, which is why global movements need to challenge it. ‘We exist in the heart of empire [in Britain],’ said Jeanine. ‘We’re strategically located within the imperial core to jam the gears of empire so we have a really important role to play in disrupting capital or disrupting the flow of capital.’

 protest aimed at exposing insurers’ complicity in border militarization, fossil fuels and military equipment. In some cities offices were ‘crashed’ and a central London building was scaled by climbers unfurling banners calling for a boycott of targeted insurance companies.

‘Insurance really is a common denominator,’ explained Jeanine of the Palestinian Youth Movement. ‘Every business, every work place needs to be insured by someone. These insurers are insuring complicit companies and enabling them to continue destroying the climate and reinforcing the UK border regime, and also the genocide of our people in Palestine.’

How journalists can hold algorithms accountable in India – and beyond  https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/how-journalists-can-hold-algorithms-accountable-india-and-beyond   In Haryana, a family-ID system meant to streamline benefits erroneously marked living people as “dead”, cutting them off overnight. In Telangana, a data-matching stack wrongly denied subsidised rations to thousands.  

Imran Pratapgarhi का वायरल भाषण सुनिए राज्यसभा में शायरी सुनाकर सरकार को खूब घेरा   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xu0fuEML5s  Transcript & Translation    
 हम करें बात दलीलों से तो रद्द होती है।
उनके होठों की खामोशी भी सनद होती है।
When we speak with arguments, they are dismissed.
Even the silence of their lips becomes a testament.

कुछ ना कहने से भी छीन जाता है एजाजे सुखन
जुल्म सहने से भी जालिम की मदद होती है। 
Even by saying nothing, the honor of speech is snatched away;
even by enduring injustice, the oppressor is aided.

Read more …

Together in Dialogue: The Story of the Education Network: 1993 - 2025  https://ia800207.us.archive.org/35/items/together-in-dialogue-the-story-of-the-education-network-1993-2025/Together%20in%20Dialogue%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20the%20Education%20Network%201993-2025.pdf

Radical challenges got posed: How can school be a form of resistance? How is dissent to be expressed? How do we counter dominant modes of education, of life? How alternative are we to prevailing conceptions of power, authority, success?

The Education Network is an informal group of individuals, mostly coming from the Southern states of India, who are active in the field of education with “an alternative viewpoint”. We have been meeting together for the last thirty years to share concerns and experiences about education and its meaning for our personal lives and the world around u

Comment: I would also like to add "socialisation" to Education in this dialogue.. Today the digital interactions sum total seems to be affecting behaviour and also thinking/ideology like never before.. And soon this will be handed over to AI..  So unless we also simultanoeusly build the forms of resistance into digital flows through conscious acts of decentralisation of all our digital processes, and created our own networked knowledge circuits/neural connections, we will be only breed robots..  The roots underground will have to be cooperative economics, and exchange..

Only Donald Trump and US officials have released piecemeal information about the deal that has been reached; the Indian side has confirmed the deal but shown a reticence when it comes to revealing the details.

India-US Trade Deal: The Many Things We Still Don't Know - The Wire

Modi’s statement on X did not even mention the word “deal” – but he thanked the US president for reducing the tariff on Indian goods from 50% to 18%. He provided absolutely no additional details, nor did he mention what India had promised the US in return.

Since neither country has issued a formal press communique or detailed statement on the matter, the information the public has been able to glean about this reported deal is based solely on social media posts. Unsurprisingly, that’s left a lot of questions unanswered.

03/02/2026

Reading Ram Madhav..  https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/ram-madhav-writes-in-his-last-days-a-dilemma-the-mahatma-couldnt-resolve-10504332/ 
"..But was Godse also wrong in his reasons for killing Gandhi? "
"Gandhi never wanted India to be partitioned."
"Gandhi cannot be completely absolved of his role in creating “circumstances” that led to the Partition." Godse thought so.  "Indian politics, “in the absence of Gandhiji”, would surely be better," 
" He was proved wrong. India became a vibrant polity,  but not in Gandhi’s absence but through his eternal presence."

QED: Eternal Presence of Gandhi made India a vibrant polity!

Open Letter to the CJI Requesting the Withdrawal of His Remarks on Domestic Workers, Minimum Wages and Trade Unions

To,
Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi – 110001

Hon’ble Lordship,

“Labour is not content with securing merely fair conditions of work. What labour wants is fair conditions of life.”
- Dr B. R. Ambedkar

We, the undersigned, write this letter to express our strong displeasure about your observations pertaining to statutory minimum wages and the role of trade unions, that you have made while hearing the case titled as Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam Vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 42/2026. 

The case arises from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding guaranteed minimum wages for domestic workers. Your Lordship observed that minimum wages might be an impediment to recruitment, and that the enforcement of minimum wages for domestic work might lead to disruption in domestic life. 

The comment that the regressive methods of trade unions had been largely responsible for stalling industrial growth in the country and forcing the closure of factories, has no basis whatsoever; it is well known that industrial closures primarily a result of mismanagement and wilful diversion of funds. “These jhanda unions have left thousands of labourers in the lurch and without employment eventually” is reportedly another remark made during the hearing, while referring to the closure of sugarcane and other industrial units, and adding that aggressive protest methods had often backfired on workers themselves by driving employers out of business. 

We wish to remind you that your remarks violate both the Constitution of India, statutes, and judicial precedents and go against India’s commitment to international conventions on labour, human rights and collective bargaining.   

Minimum wages were guaranteed for scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and this continues into the new labour codes. In several states of India like Jharkhand, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, even domestic work comes under scheduled employment, which means that domestic workers in those states are assured of minimum wages. Minimum wages are the bare minimum required for survival of the working classes. Work, sans minimum wages, ceases to be work and becomes forced labour which the Constitution  of India forbids. 

Likewise, collective bargaining through formation of trade unions, falls under the freedom to form associations, which is guaranteed by article 19(1) (c) of the Indian constitution. Collective bargaining is not only central to democracy, but it has historically played a key role in ensuring workers’ participation in industries. Unions have facilitated bipartite dialogue between employers and workers and thereby contributed to industrial peace and economic prosperity. However, it is fact that this is a right that a small percentage of workers are able to exercise. As you are aware, more than 90% of India’s workers are in the unorganised sector, without any union to fight for their rights.

The remark by your lordship, regarding trade unions being an impediment to the industrial development of the country is totally unfounded, incorrect and give a very wrong impression to the public at large about the role of unions. Similarly, your remark on the minimum wages gives a wrong impression to the people about what constitutes decent work. 

As far as the entry of labour litigation into the domestic sphere is concerned, we wish to remind you that the ‘home’ is already recognized in law as a space of individual rights. Marriage laws, domestic violence laws, property laws, all work together to ensure democracy at home. Someone’s home is somebody else’s workplace. There is no reason why workplace laws cannot be extended to homes. Lack of laws ensuring rights of domestic workers leaves them entirely to the mercy of the employer. Live-in domestic workers often face harassment, violence and even death. 

Official government data from the e-Shram portal (as of July 2023) reports 2.81 crore (28 million) registered domestic and household workers.  However, experts and advocacy groups suggest the actual number is much higher, with estimates ranging from 4.2 million to over 50 million, and some sources even suggesting up to 80–90 million. That is a huge part of India’s workforce, consisting mostly of women, and even children, and all employed informally.     

India’s working classes are grappling with the new labour codes at the moment. The new codes have been imposed without consulting representatives of the working classes, and the codes are likely to exclude the majority of workers from statutory guarantees especially the informal workers. The executive, in its eagerness to justify the codes, has been extremely disparaging about the rights of informal workers, and of workers in general, asking them to see work as duty to the nation rather than an act of value production which deserves due remuneration. 

Your observations essentially echo the executive’s views. Remarks such as these are likely to encourage people to submit to exploitation rather than demand the bare minimum due to them for their labour. Such a mindset is bound to harm the dignity of the individual workers, and ultimately stultify democracy in the workplace and in society at large. 

Your Lordship, who is the chief custodian of our Constitution, is setting a very concerning precedent and severely undermining the very principles of our constitution which assures welfare of the working classes, and freedom and dignity of the individual irrespective of their caste, class, religion or creed. 

We are living at a time when Dr. Ambedkar’s warning is a lived reality: “Two things are bound to happen in a capitalist parliamentary democracy. Those who work must live in poverty and those who do not work accumulate immense wealth. On the one hand political equality and on the other economic inequality. Food, clothing and shelter, healthy life are not available, and independence does not matter, especially until they can earn their living with dignity. Every worker must be assured of security and a share in the national wealth.” The situation is only bound to worsen with the new Labour Codes coming to force and the MNREGA having been replaced with the VB Gram G Act. 

Your comments could not have come at a more inopportune moment when the working class across the country are gearing to fight against these anti-worker laws, and assert their rights to better labour law protections. The Trade Unions have a decisive role to play in guiding these struggles towards the path of realising the constitutional dream for all workers. 

Lastly, we would like recall the judgment in “In Re: Remarks by High Court Judge During Court Proceedings” (Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 9/2024, judgement dated 25 September 2024), where the Supreme Court took note that all stake holders in the judicial system, including judges have to be conscious of the fact that the reach of judicial proceedings extends beyond those who are physically present, as such this places an added responsibility on judges to conduct the proceedings conscious of the wide and immediate impact of casual observations on the community at large. The Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that judges need to be conscious of their predispositions and yet be faithful to the fundamental obligation to render objective and fair justice. It is in this context that the Supreme Court held that: “Casual observations often reflect individual bias, particularly, when they are likely to be perceived as being directed against a particular gender or community. Courts, therefore, have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or, for that matter, prejudicial to any segment of our society”. 

It is unfortunate that this Court lost sight of this sage law during the hearing of the domestic workers PIL. What makes the matter tragic is that in its judgement dated 29.01.2025 in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (Crl. A. No. 441/2025), a bench headed by yourself had noted as follows: “Domestic workers often belong to marginalised communities, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Economically Weaker Sections. They are compelled to undertake domestic work due to financial hardship or displacement, further reinforcing their vulnerability. That is not to say, however, that we are declaiming this source of gainful employment that is readily available to women across all social substratas. On the contrary, we seek to affirm this important livelihood that is available to so many women, which brings them one step closer to financial security and the accompanying independence”. 

After noticing the lack of wage and other protections for domestic workers, this Court directed the constitution of an Expert Committee to consider the requirement of a legal framework specific to domestic workers and submit its report within 6 months whereupon the Government of India would consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers. The inaction of the Union Government to take any necessary action had forced this PIL to be filed.

Years ago, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Textile Workers’ Union vs P.R. Ramakrishnan & Others [AIR 1983 SC 75] reinforced the role and the place of workers in the industrial establishments and in society. To quote: 

“We are concerned in these appeals only with the relationship of the workers vis-a-vis the company. It is clear from what we have stated above that it is not only the shareholders who have supplied capital who are interested in the enterprise which is being run by a company but the workers who supply labour are also equally interested because what is produced by the enterprise is the result of labour as well as capital. In fact, the owners of capital bear only limited financial risk and otherwise contribute nothing to production while labour contributes a major share of the product. While the former invests only a part of their moneys, the latter invest their sweat and toil, in fact their life itself…  

…[Workers] are no more vendors of toil; they are not a marketable commodity to be purchased by the owners of capital. They are producers of wealth as much as capital. They supply labour without which capital would be impotent and they are, at the least, equal partners with capital in the enterprise. Our Constitution has shown profound concern for the workers and given them a pride of place in the new socio-economic order envisaged in the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Preamble contains the profound declaration pregnant with meaning and hope for millions of peasants and workers that India shall be a socialist democratic republic where social and economic justice will inform all institutions of national life and there will be equality of status and opportunity for all and every endeavour shall be made to promote fraternity ensuring the dignity of the individual…” 

It is this due that the trade unions seek, nothing more nothing less. Rights not freebies. Freedom not serfdom. Dignity not patronising remarks and attitudes.  

In the light of the above concerns, we, the undersigned trade unions, workers’ associations and civil society organizations, request withdrawal of these remarks.