The India–US trade arrangement, as outlined so far, is not a routine tariff adjustment.
It signals a structural economic shift with serious implications for Jammu and Kashmir’s agro-horticulture economy. For a region that is consumption-linked, land-dependent, and overwhelmingly horticulture-centric, the entry of low-priced agricultural imports into Indian markets is not neutral. It becomes an economic stress multiplier.
Three realities underline this risk. Tariff liberalization on US agricultural goods tilts competition in favor of heavily subsidized American agribusiness. Jammu and Kashmir’s horticulture sector is price-sensitive, smallholder-driven, and logistics-burdened. And any price shock spreads beyond orchards into employment, trade margins, and rural liquidity across the region.
The proposed framework points to tariff reductions on a wide range of US agricultural products, including fruits, nuts, soybean oil, and animal feed inputs. These products originate from one of the most subsidized agricultural systems in the world. US farmers receive tens of billions of dollars annually through crop insurance subsidies, price support programs, and direct income assistance. These mechanisms lower risk and stabilize export pricing.
Indian farmers operate under very different conditions. Input costs have risen sharply. Fertilizer, diesel, transport, and packaging expenses have all increased, while farmgate prices remain volatile. The imbalance is clear. When subsidized output enters a price-sensitive market, it does not compete on equal footing. It undercuts. Price suppression follows.
India has already witnessed a sharp increase in US agricultural imports, rising to nearly $2.9 billion during recent negotiations. This happened even before deeper tariff reductions. Further easing of duties, particularly on soybean oil and fruit categories, is likely to accelerate inflows.
Structural Vulnerability
Jammu and Kashmir’s vulnerability is structural. The region is not an industrial buffer economy. It is overwhelmingly agrarian and horticulture-led. While agriculture contributes roughly 16 percent to India’s GDP and supports about 45 percent of its population, dependency in Jammu and Kashmir is even higher in rural districts. Apples form the backbone of this structure.
The region contributes about 70 to 75 percent of India’s apple production. The sector supports more than 700,000 families directly or indirectly. It generates thousands of seasonal jobs in harvesting, grading, packing, and transport. Apple trade also drives rural cash circulation before the winter months.
Yet these orchards are small and fragmented. Average landholdings are modest. Production costs per unit are higher because of terrain, labor intensity and long transport routes to mainland markets. Imported apples arrive through ports with lower logistics costs per unit. Even small price differences influence trader preference. Cheaper stock with uniform grading often wins.
This dynamic is not hypothetical. Past inflows of Iranian, US, and other imported apples have already pressured local prices.
Apple markets operate within narrow seasonal windows. A glut during harvest depresses prices sharply. If cheaper imports arrive at the same time, growers face a double squeeze: oversupply and undercut pricing.
Apples are not a diversified crop in Jammu and Kashmir. They are the primary income source. A fall of even five to ten rupees per kilogram at the wholesale level can wipe out profit margins. Across millions of boxes, losses quickly climb into hundreds of crores.
The argument that rising demand will absorb imports overlooks basic market behavior. Traders prioritize margins and consistency. Imported produce often arrives in uniform packaging and a steady supply, making it attractive to wholesalers.
Tariff easing on soybean oil and dried distillers’ grains may appear unrelated to the region’s orchards. But the effects are indirect and significant. Cheaper imported oil reduces demand for domestic oilseed crushing.
Lower-cost feed inputs shift livestock and poultry producers away from local supply chains. Income compression in one segment spreads through transporters, processors, traders, and rural service providers. Agricultural economies are interconnected systems. When margins shrink in one area, liquidity contracts across the rural economy.
Jammu and Kashmir’s growers also face long-standing structural disadvantages. Transport from mountain orchards to major markets involves longer routes and higher freight costs. Cold storage capacity, though expanded, still does not match total production. Seasonal gluts force distress sales. Post-harvest losses remain significant. Climatic volatility disrupts yields. Pest management costs have risen as disease patterns shift.
Trade liberalization does not address these structural burdens. It exposes high-cost producers to competition from large-scale, mechanized, and subsidized suppliers. The result is not efficiency correction. It is margin erosion.
Consequences on Rural Economy
The consequences extend beyond farms. Horticulture income underpins rural consumption cycles. Harvest earnings fund education, health care, housing repairs, and winter expenses. When apple prices fall, the impact is felt across entire communities. Fewer labor days are hired. Packaging demand declines. Transport activity drops. Commission agents handle smaller volumes. The slowdown spreads through the local economy.
Farmer unions’ warnings should be read in this context. Their concerns reflect competitive asymmetry, not political rhetoric. Small and fragmented holdings cannot match the scale and subsidy support of large export-oriented systems. Government assurances about safeguards such as quotas or minimum import prices sound reassuring on paper. But perishable markets move quickly. Delays of even a few weeks can depress prices for an entire season.
The debate over “red lines” in the trade talks also reveals a narrow framing. Authorities stress that grains, dairy, and poultry remain protected. That may shield some national sectors. But in Jammu and Kashmir, horticulture is equally sensitive. Apples are not a marginal commodity. They are the region’s primary income pillar.
Trade policy is not an abstract diplomatic exercise for mountain economies. It directly determines whether orchard-based livelihoods remain viable. The proposed trade shift introduces asymmetric competition into a structurally fragile region. Producers benefiting from scale, subsidies, and advanced logistics will gain an advantage. Small growers with higher transport costs and seasonal price dependence will face downward pressure.
The likely outcomes follow familiar economic logic: falling producer prices, shrinking household incomes, reduced seasonal employment, and a slowdown across trade and service sectors. Without robust tariff buffers or swiftly enforced safeguards, the region’s horticulture economy risks destabilization rather than adjustment.
Have you liked the news article?