Brushing aside suggestions that India's tough stance on food security was guided by the forthcoming general elections, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma today said New Delhi would prefer "no agreement" over a bad one, thus raising the risk for collapse of the WTO talks here.
"It is better to have a no agreement than to have a bad agreement," Sharma said at a packed press meet. He asserted: "We have not come here to collapse any meeting. India is committed to a positive outcome in Bali. India is committed to a balanced and fair outcome, particularly in public stockholding and food security."
Sharma, who is holding talks to garner support on the food security issue here, the venue of the Ninth Ministerial Conference, sid there could be "no compromise" on the matter, which is of vital importance for poor and developing countries, including India.
Developed countries such as the US are asking India to accept a peace clause, which offers four years of immunity against penalties imposed for breaching the farm subsidy cap of 10 per cent under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). India and other developing nations, on the other hand, want the peace clause until a permanent solution is found on the matter for smooth implementation of the food security programme. Asked if the Indian government was raising the food security issue to gain political mileage in the 2014 general elections, Sharma said:
"I think this is a misconception. Democracies do have elections but democracies also have principles and convictions...This proposal emanates from the Hong Kong ministerial meeting of 2005. "India has not suddenly remembered that there are going to be elections and suddenly pulled the rabbit out of the hat. That is not the case.
"This is an eight-year-old proposal which has been discussed and re-discussed, negotiated and re-negotiated many times and those who are of knowledge of developments, even during the near collapse in June 2008, the AoA continued to be negotiated," Sharma said. On whether India is isolated in the G-33, a coalition ofdeveloping countries, over the food security issue, Sharma said, "That is not true" as the majority of countries where over 70 per cent of the people live support New Delhi's stand.
"I would like to make this absolutely clear that we have not come here as petitioners to beg for a peace clause," he said, adding that the right to food security is non-negotiable and India never sought the clause that provides the four-year grace period to comply with the farm subsidy formula.
Amid mounting pressure from rich countries to agree to the food subsidy cap, Sharma said, "We cannot possibly be expected to negotiate something which is in direct conflict with our food security. "India is not the only country which gives MSP to its farmers. A large number of countries which have the similar programme...At least 15-odd countries, if not more, have notified schemes for food security and public procurement."
The minister said India cannot accept any binding commitments as the 10 per cent subsidy limit is based on 1986-88 reference prices "and (would make us) vulnerable to disputes and calculations."