19
Commerce & Industry Minister, Mr. Murasoli Maran, also wrote to Chief Ministers of all
the state governments and the leaders of all political parties in October 2000 inviting their
inputs for finalization of India’s negotiating proposals. The expert group on agriculture
met on 16 November, 2000 while the WTO Coordinating Group of Secretaries’ meeting
was held on 30 November, 2000 to give final shape to India's proposals. A similar
process of consultation was repeated before the Doha and Cancun conferences as well.
We started by asking why India’s position at the WTO negotiations have been
overwhelmingly defensive despite its overall liberalizing trend. Here we have shown that
there is a widespread consensus that that the international trade regime is biased and that
developing countries do not stand to benefit from it. Given the trend of falling
commodity prices in the global market and the large subsidies given to farmers by
developed states, this argument is difficult to counter. However, beneath this consensus,
there is an equally clear realization that domestic agriculture policy reform needs to begin
before Indian farmers can be exposed to external competition. These reforms are
important so that the price advantage that farmers enjoy can be realized through exports.
Some of the reforms are also necessary to shield farmers from price volatility in the
global markets. Thus the consensus around the inequity of the global trading system,
while widespread, is not what is driving India’s negotiating position.
The paper also shows that most farming interests are expressed in protectionist terms.
Political leaders as well as bureaucrats, who claim to represent farmers’ interests, argue
that Indian farmers, particularly small and marginal farmers need protection in order to
sustain their livelihoods. The few liberal voices that exist do not get heard as much
Convention