India's agrifood production involves more than 700 million peasants, half of the country's population. Yet this massive human effort does not translate into productivity. Instead, India maintains closed markets, fixed prices, and protectionist schemes that keep out foreign competition.

The most striking example is Amul, the dairy cooperative that controls 75% of India's milk market, generating revenues above US$ 7.3 billion in 2024. Its model is simple: it buys all the milk produced by its 3.6 million members at a fixed price of US$ 0.45 per liter, regardless of market conditions. This ensures guaranteed daily sales but eliminates incentives for efficiency or innovation. The outcome: zero or even negative productivity, with absolute loyalty from its members.

India's dairy market is completely closed to foreign competition, protected by tariffs ranging from 30% to 60%. The same applies to much of its agrifood production. By contrast, the U.S. produces similar volumes of food with only 800,000 farmers, highlighting a massive productivity gap.

It's no surprise then that Donald Trump, in his second term, imposed a 50% tariff on India. The U.S. priority is to open markets to reduce its US$ 1.2 trillion trade deficit in 2024, and India's agrifood barriers are a prime target.

Today, India is the world's 4th largest economy, soon to become the 3rd in 2026, according to the World Bank. Yet its bilateral trade with the U.S. barely surpasses US$ 240 billion, far below expectations for two economic giants. The reason is clear: a closed economy, especially in agriculture.

The paradox is striking: India has 400 million heads of cattle, but exports no beef due to religious and cultural restrictions. That vacuum has been filled by Brazil, with 240 million cattle, now the world's top beef exporter.

Strictly speaking, there is no capital accumulation in Indian agriculture. The country has the potential to become a global power, but without addressing its agrarian question, it will remain stuck in an unproductive and closed structure.

China proves that without transforming its agrifood base, no nation can secure global power status. India has opened up its industrial and services sectors in recent trade agreements with Australia and the EU, but agriculture remains off-limits.

The clash with the U.S. exposes this core contradiction. If India does not open its agriculture, its economic growth will be insufficient to cement its global role. Time is running out, and the challenge is stark: either open its markets or delay indefinitely its great power dream.