New Delhi: India has come under fresh scrutiny at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over its failure to respond to farm trade-related queries that have accumulated over more than a decade. The latest secretariat report shows the country has the longest list of pending queries at the WTO, with a sizeable number dating back to 2013.

The updated WTO note, issued on 8 September, listed 186 unanswered questions from 2013 to 2023, along with another 51 from 2024, of which India has 30 pending as of 5 September.

By comparison, China has 20 pending queries, Pakistan five, and Bangladesh two, the report said. Most of the questions had been raised by the US with 157, followed by Canada with 61, Australia with 40, and Japan with 13, the WTO paper said.

Many of the queries directed at India concern its minimum support price (MSP) procurement, public stockholding for food security, sugar export subsidies, cotton support programmes, and overdue notifications under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

Trading partners, including the US, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, and the European Union (EU), have repeatedly sought clarifications, but timely replies have not come in, according to the WTO report reviewed by Mint.

While India maintains that its subsidy and procurement programmes are crucial for ensuring food security and protecting small farmers, members from the developed economies view its delayed responses as a challenge to transparency and a potential dent in confidence in the multilateral trading system.

On the issue of unanswered queries, a senior government official said, “India’s subsidy and public stockholding programmes are designed to ensure food security and protect the livelihoods of our small and marginal farmers.”

“These measures are fully compliant with our WTO commitments, and we remain committed to transparency while safeguarding the interests of our agricultural community,” said the government official, who requested anonymity.

India runs one of the world’s largest food security systems under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) and the broader National Food Security Act (NFSA) framework, providing subsidised grains to over 800 million people through its public distribution system.

Farmers also get support through the government's minimum support price (MSP) programmes, input subsidies, and fertilizer and electricity subsidies. In FY25, the government spent over ₹1.5 trillion on food and farm-related subsidies to ensure affordability for consumers and income support for farmers.

The WTO report grouped India with other developing economies such as Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Côte d’Ivoire, which have long-pending replies to members' queries.

On its part, India has also actively pressed other countries for clarity on their policies: questioning the US and EU on farm subsidies, challenging Canada and Australia on dairy market access, and seeking explanations from Brazil on sugar support, as per the WTO paper.

New Delhi argues that richer countries continue to operate opaque domestic support programmes that distort global farm trade far more than schemes in the developing economies.

Analysts say India is unlikely to change its food security stance, but it may need to engage more proactively to avoid being cornered. “This is less about policy change and more about managing perceptions,” said Dr. Amit Singh, associate professor at the Special Centre for National Security Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University. “If India continues to stonewall, the US and EU will use this to rally others against it, creating a credibility gap in Geneva.”

The development comes amid rising global tensions over farm trade, with countries increasingly accusing each other of non-transparent subsidy regimes. For India, timely disclosure could help balance its food security arguments with the need to reassure trading partners that its programmes remain within WTO limits, while also safeguarding its position in upcoming negotiations.

According to experts, the issue could gain greater prominence when agriculture negotiations resume in Geneva later this year. “Non-responsiveness is being noted more sharply now,” said Rajesh Sharma, an agriculture expert. “India’s stand on public stockholding has wider support among developing countries, but failing to meet basic transparency requirements undermines its position.”

New Delhi: India has come under fresh scrutiny at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over its failure to respond to farm trade-related queries that have accumulated over more than a decade. The latest secretariat report shows the country has the longest list of pending queries at the WTO, with a sizeable number dating back to 2013.

The updated WTO note, issued on 8 September, listed 186 unanswered questions from 2013 to 2023, along with another 51 from 2024, of which India has 30 pending as of 5 September.

By comparison, China has 20 pending queries, Pakistan five, and Bangladesh two, the report said. Most of the questions had been raised by the US with 157, followed by Canada with 61, Australia with 40, and Japan with 13, the WTO paper said.

Many of the queries directed at India concern its minimum support price (MSP) procurement, public stockholding for food security, sugar export subsidies, cotton support programmes, and overdue notifications under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

Trading partners, including the US, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, and the European Union (EU), have repeatedly sought clarifications, but timely replies have not come in, according to the WTO report reviewed by Mint.

While India maintains that its subsidy and procurement programmes are crucial for ensuring food security and protecting small farmers, members from the developed economies view its delayed responses as a challenge to transparency and a potential dent in confidence in the multilateral trading system.

On the issue of unanswered queries, a senior government official said, “India’s subsidy and public stockholding programmes are designed to ensure food security and protect the livelihoods of our small and marginal farmers.”

“These measures are fully compliant with our WTO commitments, and we remain committed to transparency while safeguarding the interests of our agricultural community,” said the government official, who requested anonymity.

India runs one of the world’s largest food security systems under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) and the broader National Food Security Act (NFSA) framework, providing subsidised grains to over 800 million people through its public distribution system.

Farmers also get support through the government's minimum support price (MSP) programmes, input subsidies, and fertilizer and electricity subsidies. In FY25, the government spent over ₹1.5 trillion on food and farm-related subsidies to ensure affordability for consumers and income support for farmers.

The WTO report grouped India with other developing economies such as Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Côte d’Ivoire, which have long-pending replies to members' queries.

On its part, India has also actively pressed other countries for clarity on their policies: questioning the US and EU on farm subsidies, challenging Canada and Australia on dairy market access, and seeking explanations from Brazil on sugar support, as per the WTO paper.

New Delhi argues that richer countries continue to operate opaque domestic support programmes that distort global farm trade far more than schemes in the developing economies.

Analysts say India is unlikely to change its food security stance, but it may need to engage more proactively to avoid being cornered. “This is less about policy change and more about managing perceptions,” said Dr. Amit Singh, associate professor at the Special Centre for National Security Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University. “If India continues to stonewall, the US and EU will use this to rally others against it, creating a credibility gap in Geneva.”

The development comes amid rising global tensions over farm trade, with countries increasingly accusing each other of non-transparent subsidy regimes. For India, timely disclosure could help balance its food security arguments with the need to reassure trading partners that its programmes remain within WTO limits, while also safeguarding its position in upcoming negotiations.

According to experts, the issue could gain greater prominence when agriculture negotiations resume in Geneva later this year. “Non-responsiveness is being noted more sharply now,” said Rajesh Sharma, an agriculture expert. “India’s stand on public stockholding has wider support among developing countries, but failing to meet basic transparency requirements undermines its position.”