Menu

Why the India-NZ Free Trade Agreement. Anti-farmer, anti-worker, anti-indigenous

By  ·  July 10, 2026
10
July 2026

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are often celebrated as the route to economic growth, with the promise of increased market access, foreign investment and international partnerships. But the benefits are not always shared equally. Negotiating FTAs with wealthier economies of the Global North pose challenges for countries in the Global South as the two sides often operate on an uneven playing field. Developed countries usually have highly mechanised agriculture, advanced technology and more financial support for producers. Developing countries like India are still heavily dependent on smallholder farmers and labour-intensive agriculture. India’s own experience with previous FTAs has reinforced these concerns. For example, the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement has been linked to increased imports of goods like tea, coffee, fisheries and plantation crops, which has put pressure on domestic producers (Ratna & Kallummal, 2013). The Times of India (2025) reported that India has a merchandise trade deficit with five out of seven countries and blocks it signed FTAs with. On the backdrop of this, the India–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement has raised debates on whether trade liberalisation can go hand-in-hand with protecting millions of Indian farmers dependent on agriculture for their livelihood.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), one of the country’s largest mass organisations of agricultural workers and peasants with millions of members has strongly opposed the agreement, viewing it as an example of an unequal trade structure that could worsen existing vulnerabilities in Indian agriculture (All India Kisan Sabha, 2026). The AIKS described the India-New Zealand FTA as an ‘onslaught on Indian agriculture’ and the organisation demands the Indian government to scrap the FTA. AIKS says Indian farmers already struggling with the burden of rising operational costs, climate uncertainty, indebtedness and weak price realisation and are thus very vulnerable to import competition. Specifically, the organisation cautions that increased market access for highly efficient agricultural exporters such as New Zealand could exert pressure on domestic producers, particularly in sensitive sectors like dairy where millions of rural households depend on small-scale production for their livelihoods (All India Kisan Sabha, 2026). AIKS highlights a provision in FTA that India agreeing to remove import tariff on high value dairy products like bulk infant formula ‘could hugely benefit New Zealand based dairy big business and harm the class interests of Indian dairy farmers’.

Similar apprehensions are being voiced by apple growers in the Himalayan regions of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir where horticulture is the backbone of rural livelihoods. Farmers in these regions are worried about the reduction of import duties for New Zealand apples under the FTA leading to cheaper imports flooding the Indian market during peak marketing seasons when domestic apples are stored and sold (The Economic Times, 2025), according to recent reports. Growers argue that even small import quotas can affect market prices and reduce returns for local produce, especially when considering India’s lower productivity and higher production risks compared to New Zealand (The Indian Express, 2026). The FTA will negatively impact 150000 families associated with apple farming in Himachal Pradesh. Leaders and farmer associations in Himachal Pradesh have also demanded stronger safeguards, such as higher import duties and seasonal restrictions, warning that unchecked imports could destabilise the hill economy and discourage long-term investment in orchards (Economic Times, 2026).

Various New Zealand unions have expressed two main concerns about the Free Trade Agreement. One being that the high number of work visas granted makes migrant labour vulnerable to exploitation. Especially since they are unlikely to know their rights and be dependent on their employer for their visas.

The second concern was that this migrant labour from India was being imported at the cost of developing a local work force.

These unions also stated that none of them had been consulted during negotiations. Sandra Gray, president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions articulated that there was real worry that New Zealand would be buying goods manufactured under exploitative conditions in India.

Finally te Tiriti, the Treaty of Waitangi, is not referenced in the FTA.

Maori were not included in any negotiations.

And, we argue that even though the FTA mentions UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and that the cultural and traditional knowledge of the people of both countries, the Indian clause of considering all Indians as 'indigenous' is deeply flawed. Indigeneity as applied in India to all people erases the various tribes who inhabited the land first. This paper explains it better.

https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/IA_3-08_India.pdf

This language actually excludes the various tribes while pushing the idea that an upper caste Hindu, is indigenous. It is a way to colonise, appropriate and steal indigenous resources, lands and knowledge.

It is also a way to propagate concepts such as yoga and Ayurveda being indigenous when they are Brahminical in origin. AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddhi and Homeopathy) is a visa category in the FTA and the Hindu fascist ecosystem has already started talking about how they can work with Maori as indigenous peoples. It is a sham. Because Adivasi in India are socially excluded and erased.

Therefore, through its exclusionary language, the FTA is anti-indigenous to the first peoples of India and tangata whenua in Aotearoa.

Ultimately the India-NZ Frree Trade Agreement does not centre either the Indian or New Zealand public, Indian farmers and workers or New Zealand labour.

 

References:

Created with NationBuilder