India's opposition parties are preparing to corner Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government in Parliament over the recently signed trade deal with the United States, calling it a "complete surrender" that sacrifices Indian interests for political optics.

The India-US Trade Agreement, finalized last week in Washington, promises expanded market access for American agricultural products and pharmaceuticals in exchange for preferential tariffs on Indian textiles and IT services. But opposition leaders say the fine print reveals major concessions that could hurt Indian farmers, small businesses, and domestic manufacturing.

Rahul Gandhi, leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, told reporters outside Parliament that Prime Minister Modi has "completely surrendered India's economic sovereignty." He pointed to provisions allowing increased imports of American dairy, wheat, and soybeans - sectors where Indian farmers are already struggling with low prices and debt.

A billion people aren't a statistic - they're a billion stories. For Ramesh Patil, a sugarcane farmer in Maharashtra's Nashik district, the trade deal means competing with American corn syrup imports. "They're telling me to compete with farms that get billions in subsidies," he told Indian Express. "How is that fair?"

The opposition's parliamentary strategy will focus on three key areas: agricultural impact, pharmaceutical pricing, and data localization requirements that India has reportedly weakened to secure the deal.

Here's what's actually in the agreement:

The deal reduces Indian tariffs on agricultural imports from 150% to 50% over three years, potentially flooding the market with cheaper American produce. In return, the US will maintain preferential access for Indian H-1B visa holders and reduce tariffs on textile exports from 15% to 8%.

Pharmaceutical provisions are particularly contentious. India agreed to extend data exclusivity periods for certain drugs from 5 to 8 years, potentially delaying generic medication production. This matters enormously in a country where generic drugs comprise 90% of pharmaceutical consumption and keep healthcare costs manageable for hundreds of millions.

Trade economist Dr. Jayati Ghosh at the University of Massachusetts Amherst told Indian Express the deal reflects asymmetric bargaining power. "India's tech services sector will benefit, yes - but that's 5 million jobs. Agriculture employs 200 million Indians. The math doesn't work in favor of ordinary citizens."

The Modi government defends the agreement as a strategic victory. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal called it "the largest bilateral trade agreement India has ever signed," projecting it will add $50 billion to India's GDP over five years and create 2 million jobs in the IT and textiles sectors.

Government officials also note that tighter US-India economic ties serve geopolitical interests, particularly as both countries seek to reduce dependence on China. The deal includes provisions for joint technology development and semiconductor manufacturing that align with India's "Make in India" vision.

But small business owners remain skeptical. Suresh Kumar, who runs a generic pharmaceutical company in Hyderabad, said extended data exclusivity could force him to lay off workers. "We can't launch generics for eight years instead of five. That's three years of lost revenue we can't absorb."

The political battleground has already been drawn. The BJP argues that opposition criticism ignores India's growing global stature and the necessity of strategic alignment with the US. Congress counters that strategic partnerships shouldn't require surrendering domestic economic protections.

Parliament will debate the trade deal starting Wednesday, with opposition parties demanding a detailed impact assessment on farmers, clause-by-clause scrutiny of pharmaceutical provisions, and data on projected job losses in sectors facing increased import competition.

Sitaram Yechury, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), called for the deal to be sent to a parliamentary standing committee for comprehensive review - a demand the government has so far rejected.

For India's 1.4 billion people, the debate isn't academic. It's about whether trade policy serves ordinary citizens or merely corporate interests and geopolitical posturing. The opposition is betting that substantive criticism of the deal's economic terms will resonate more than government claims of strategic triumph.