INDIA'S FOOD SAFETY POLICY DEFIES THE GLOBALIZATION REGIME

INDIA'S FOOD SAFETY POLICY DEFIES THE GLOBALIZATION

REGIME

Introduction

At the WTO (World Trade Organization) meeting in Bali in December 2013, an agreement

was reached called the Bali Package, which was attended by 159 WTO member countries.

The Bali Package was reached through an agreement between WTO members that seeks to

reduce bureaucratic barriers in the flow of global distribution and trade. However, before the

Bali Package agreement was reached, when the draft was rejected by the Indian government

representatives. India's Minister of Commerce, Anand Sharma walked out because he

rejected the provisions on food subsidies. India firmly rejected the compromise proposed by

developed countries regarding the amount of subsidies up to 15 percent with the provision of

time valid for 4 years. India proposed increasing food reserves from 10 percent to 15 percent

of total food production with an unlimited subsidy period (Indopos 2013).

India's assertive stance is linked to its food security strategy as set out in The Indian

National Food Security Act, which was passed on September 10, 2013. In the preamble

contained in The Indian National Food Security Act No 20 of 2013, the Act affirms that the

state must provide food and nutrition at every stage of the lives of its citizens, by ensuring

availability of both sufficient quantity and good quality at affordable prices for all citizens.

Thus, the existence of this regulation ensures basic food needs (for grain commodities

including rice and wheat) for Indian citizens with a sizable population to have easy access to

food and affordability. In addition, this regulation requires food subsidies to support citizens'

affordability of food. India is quite aware that globalization with free trade can have a

negative impact, one of which is the fluctuation of food price increases and the threat of

food scarcity. Free trade encourages multinational companies to open food companies that

can displace poor people's land.

Anand Sharma at the WTO meeting rejected provisions that could jeopardize subsidies for

grains under India's policy of providing affordable food to the poor. India was instrumental

in the WTO agreement as it pioneered a strong stand on behalf of developing countries.

After India's decisive action, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela rejected the draft

WTO agreement. Even during the WTO Round in Uruguay, negotiations on agricultural

subsidies were tough to reach an agreement (Antara 2013).

In the era of economic globalization, trade-related arrangements have become a monopoly

for developed countries through the WTO meeting forum. So that developing countries do

not have the same position in negotiating agreements. The WTO agreement in the Bali

Package became an important history when the United States succumbed to India. The WTO

agreement was formed after the United States allowed India and other developing countries

to maintain their food subsidy policies. On the other hand, the United States prohibited India

and developing countries from expanding their agricultural products to international

markets. The United States is concerned that if the products of India and developing

countries expand in the market, it will be able to disrupt world commodity prices (Berita

Satu 2013). In addition, India and developing countries are also required to report food

subsidy policies to the WTO.

This research seeks to examine the Indian government's anxiety in the face of globalization.

This is associated with threats to human security, one of which is the need for food. As a

developing country, it is prone to various potential threats. Globalization brings the impact

of multinational corporations with great political and economic power that bring foreign

direct investment needed by developing countries to drive their economies. However, behind

the pursuit of investment, the poor are at stake. So, in the wake of the strengthening free

trade, the state needs to intervene in the national interest, one of which is to protect the poor.

So the research questions are how India's food policy strengthens its national interests amid

the globalization regime, and how India shows power in pushing for an agreement in the

WTO forum that supports the position of developing countries to maintain subsidies on

agricultural products.

Globalization

There are two approaches to international organization theory: the regime approach and the

institutional approach. Regime, refers to the impact of the behavior of international

organizations as actors vis-à-vis states. International organizations can be defined as a set of

norms, rules and decision-making procedures as actors engaged in a variety of issues

(Barkin 2006, 27). Realist views emphasize an awareness of the power relations that can

force states through an anarchic environment in an effort to survive and create barriers to

international cooperation, which then raises questions about effectiveness of international

regimes. Neoliberal or interest-based theories of regimes have influenced the approach

adopted by international institutions. Neoliberals emphasize the role of international regimes

in helping states to realize their interests (Hasenclaver et al. 2004, 4).

Barkin (2006) states that globalization can change internal and external sovereignty.

Globalization can affect internal sovereignty because of the control of state autonomy. There

is decision-making power from the government to international organizations and non-state

actors which results in a reduced ability of the state to dominate decision and policy making.

Globalization can affect external sovereignty due to the loss of the monopoly of the state

sovereignty system in international political activities. International organizations can

influence decision-making autonomy, but other actors such as NGOs can participate in

international policy formulation and weaken the traditional state system.

Globalization is a process that cannot be ignored, but neither is it a form of uniformity of

impact on some people, groups or classes. In the concept of international relations,

globalization is a relationship between states and societies characterized by interdependence.

Globalization is characterized by the formation of the economy and the acceleration of

economic growth through a capitalist economy that ignores national boundaries and forms

an autarchic economy (regulating the economy independently). (Viotti & Kauppi 2006).

However, the capitalist economy led to consumerism, the spread of financial capital and also

increased information and communication capital. In addition, globalization led to the

development of transborder corporate networks, large corporate mergers and the rise of

global oligopolies (Scholte 2000, 131).

The ongoing process of globalization has triggered an unequal condition, both in developed

and developing countries. Prosperity is being promoted, but there are still too many

countries and people who do not share it. Stiglitz (2006) describes five problems related to

globalization: 1) The rules of the globalization game are unfair, designed specifically to

benefit industrialized countries. 2) Globalization prioritizes material values over other

values, such as the environment and life itself. 3) The way globalization is managed has

stripped developing countries of much of their sovereignty, including the ability to make

decisions in important areas that affect people's lives. 4) While proponents of globalization

claim that everyone will be economic gains, there is ample evidence that there are many

losers. 5) Economic systems imposed on developing countries are in some cases overly

imposed, inappropriate and often very destructive.

Referring to Stiglitz's description of the unfair rules of globalization, the free trade regime

established by the WTO seems to deny the dichotomy between the core and the periphery. It

is unfair when free trade standards and the world economic system facilitate the interests of

the core, while the periphery is constantly 'crawling' and forced to follow global standards in

order not to become an outcast in the international world. Arlene B. Tickner (2013)

describes the interdependence between local, social, economic and political structures and

the global system. Thus, local and state elites become active players in internationalization

for capitalist reasons that facilitate the domination of foreign powers (Cardoso 1977;

Cardoso and Faletto 1978). Dependency then becomes the result of endemic factors of the

periphery, where elite groups are between the pursuit of national planning and the other side

being an alliance for the core. Thus dependency views the core as exploiting the periphery

(Tickner 2013, 639).

Human Safety

This paper discusses and analyzes India's pursuit of national interest in food security.

Globalization is related to human security. The era of globalization raises many threats that

not only threaten countries, but threaten humans as individuals. How global issues can pose

a threat to human survival. Globalization shows efforts to equalize various forms of systems

in the world, but problems occur for developing and underdeveloped countries that are

'forced' to follow the rhythms and standards applied by developed countries. So

globalization brings problems because it is seen as unable to bring a just world order and has

not been able to help third world countries out of poverty. Thus, using the basis of human

security provides a warning and caution for the state to formulate its policies for the

achievement of national interests and minimize the negative impact on its citizens in the

pursuit of national interests. India's pursuit of national interest amidst the power of the

international regime in determining policies related to food security.

So it is associated with international relations studies regarding non-traditional security

studies. Non-traditional security issues are beyond the traditional concerns of security

studies. The Copenhagen School tries to expand the object of reference of security issues by

no longer talking only about "state" security, but also about "human" security. Until now,

there has been no agreement on how the concept of human security should be understood

and how it should be applied in practical politics (Hadiwinata 2007). Non-traditional

approaches focus for example on economic and trade security, environment, energy, culture

and other social issues. With the following assumptions: 1) The security of all political

entities is subordinated to the state. 2) The state faces pressures from the domestic

environment and the international environment. 3) The state surrenders its sovereignty to

international entities. 4) Security is multidimensional and complex, not just military threats.

5) The state and its sovereignty are not sufficient to explain the complexity of security

issues. 6) The state can be a source of security threats to citizens (Perwita and Yani 2005,

128).

According to Buzan (1991), security emphasizes human destiny, the pursuit of freedom from

threats. It is about how to survive, but it also includes the conditions that support security.

Security touches on the fate of a group of people and touches on personal security

concerning individual human lives. The security of a group of people depends on five

factors: First, military security is centered on the two camps that influence each other in the

armistice of warring countries both offensively and defensively. Second, political security

concerns the stability of a country's organization, system of government and the ideology

that provides legitimacy. Third, economic security concerns the access to resources, finance

and markets that are essential to maintaining a state's level of prosperity and strength.

Fourth, societal security is sustained by the evolutionary conditions of traditional patterns

such as language, culture, and religion as well as national identity and customs. Fifth,

environmental security concerns the maintenance of the local and planetary biosphere as the

essential support system on which human life depends.

Human security with a focus on the security of humanity focuses on national security. Or

widely interpreted as human security issues become the focus of individuals where they live

with the conflicting views that they are part of the citizens of a country (Viotti & Kauppi

2006, 432). Several areas are identified in the concept of human security formulated by the

UN Development Programme in its report The 1994 "Human Development Report" included

the following points: First, economic security: In this case there is a guarantee of access to

decent work, as well as freedom from things that threaten economic sustainability such as

unemployment, price increases, economic crises, poverty. Second, food security, which

means having access to food, as well as being free from threats that affect access to food

such as environmental conditions, food distribution. Third, health security is having access

to health care such as access and availability of health facilities (hospitals, medicines) and

protection from things that threaten health such as disease epidemics, environmental

conditions. Fourth, environmental security: in this case there is protection from negative

impacts caused by environmental degradation. Fifth, personal security, namely freedom

from threats posed by states, certain groups or fellow individuals such as rationalism,

discrimination, exploitation, crime and others. Sixth, community security is being free from

negative or harmful practices in society. Seventh, political security, which means being able

to enjoy human rights and being free from political pressure.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), food security at the individual,

household, national regional and global levels can be achieved when all people, at the same

time, have physically and economically sufficient access to safe and nutritious food in

accordance with their needs and food choices for an active and healthy lifestyle

(Schanbacher 2010, 13). Food safety has important implications for human security. Food

safety is an important issue for developing countries to support human quality for

development.

WTO Efforts in Agricultural Liberalization

The trade regime was born amidst conflicts between US and UK negotiators at Bretton

Woods. The UK-US compromise deal eventually created the International Trade

Organization (ITO) which kept trade issues unsolved. So in 1948 the United States created

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). (Gilpin 2002, 56). After many rounds,

the Uruguay Round was a stage of trade negotiations signed in Marrakech on 15 April 1994.

GATT consisted of 128 countries which later changed its name to WTO (World Trade

Organization). Establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1, 1995,

marked a point in the formalization and institutionalization of world free trade. The Uruguay

Round that gave birth to the WTO is a new phase of world trade history in a new era of

neoliberal globalization (Mantra 2011, 42).

The various new agreements reached in the Uruguay Round have mostly had a detrimental

impact on the economies of developing countries, especially with the elimination of export

subsidies for products that are the mainstay of developing countries. The history of the

formation of the WTO through the Uruguay Round cannot be separated from the domestic

and international trade interests of the United States. The Uruguay Round that gave birth to

the WTO cannot be separated from the trade deficit problems experienced by the United

States in the 1980s (Mantra 2011, 43). The Uruguay Round trade agreement caused

problems such as the agreement was unfair because poor countries were getting worse, the

Uruguay Round made unfair rules of the game even more unfair. Developed countries set

higher tariffs on developing countries than developed countries (Stiglitz 2006, 142).

However, the Uruguay Round achieved a number of important successes in the agricultural

sector: the inclusion of agricultural trade in the WTO framework.

In November 2001, trade ministers of WTO members met in Doha, Qatar. The negotiations

suffered from developed countries' refusal to cut subsidies in agriculture. Stiglitz (2006)

points out that the United States issued a new agricultural plan that stated it would almost

double the subsidies. The Doha Round failed to reach an agreement. The WTO negotiations

were filled with negotiations on agricultural subsidies beginning in July 2006. This followed

an EU ministerial meeting in 2008 that resulted in disagreement between agricultural

commodity exports and an agreement on a 'special safeguard measure' to protect farmers

from the impact of import policies.

The WTO General Council meeting in Geneva on November 26, 2013 (the meeting before

the Bali summit) failed to produce an agreement. The Bali Package is considered a success

because of the agreement on three agendas: trade facility, agricultural sector agreement and

the development of least developed countries. The trade facility agreement provides space

for developing and least developed countries to expand their markets and boost their exports

to developed countries. Sector agreement In terms of agriculture, the Bali Package allows

developing countries, especially countries with large populations such as India, to subsidize

their farmers and ensure food availability for the poor. Therefore, developing countries are

not required to refer to the reference price of agricultural products as per the Agreement on

Agriculture (AoA) 1994 of the Uruguay Round agreement on the mechanism of agricultural

subsidies for developed and developing countries.

Turmoil over WTO Decision in India

Since gaining independence, India has established an open economy. Narayanan (2009)

explains that after the implementation of economic reforms in 1991, India became a major

destination for global retail investment, the operation of multinational companies, the

absorption of foreign direct investment that entered and controlled the Indian market

(Andersen & Cheng 2009, 23). In addition, India was active in international multilateral

forums namely WTO meetings and the World Economic Forum. However, in 1999 and

2000, the Indian delegation left the WTO meeting in Seattle, where the US and the EU set

labor rights and environmental standards as well as multilateral investment and competition.

In both fora, India led developing countries to defend the demand for trade liberalization.

Commerce and Industry Minister Murasoli Maran offered to lead developing countries in the

negotiation process, including developed countries agreeing to WTO reforms and efforts to

remove "non-trade issues". India is an important economic player and is emerging as one of

the superpowers (Alamgir 2009, 26).

India's entry into the WTO on January 1, 1995 had a negative impact. This was due to WTO

policies governing trade and provisions related to agricultural subsidies. Farmer groups in

India generally regard the WTO as an enemy that plays a false role in globalization. Prices

of some crops have fallen drastically after the government imposed a number of restrictions

as a result of India joining the WTO. India's entry into the WTO had the consequence that

the Indian government had to reduce trade barriers. In 2001, both cotton and food prices in

India fell dramatically. India reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers to import materials for

export products. India also agreed to WTO intellectual property rules. Farmers were

required to sell their seeds to multinational companies like Monsanto every year. Monsanto

started operations in India in 1995 after the post-WTO agreement. WTO. Monsanto is a

multinational company that modifies genetic seeds for agricultural products. However, the

joining of farmers to Monsanto has had the negative effect of decreasing the income of

farmers in India. In a tragic incident in 1985, 500 cotton farmers in Warangal district of

Andhra Pradesh attempted suicide by drinking pesticides and insecticides (Alamgir 2009,

34).

A number of protest actions were enacted, namely in 1998, there was a movement

demanding the closure of Monsanto (Monsanto had a monopoly on cotton and corn

cultivation) with the protest slogan "Monsanto, Quit India". Then in June 1999, hundreds of

Indian farmers flew to Geneva to protest WTO policies in agriculture. Protests occurred

again in October 2001, the Indian Farmers Forum (Indian Kisan Sabha) condemned the

WTO and Indian environmental activists condemned the operations of Coca Cola, Pepsico

and Monsanto to quit India. In October 2005, as many as 50,000 farmers from fourteen

Indian states protested against the WTO in Mumbai. This was in response to an increase in

imported food products in India and the withdrawal of agricultural subsidies. Increased trade

and the presence of multinational corporations also united environmental groups in urban

and rural India. The solidarity groups resisted and demanded that the government withdraw

Coca Cola, Pepsico and Monsanto as agents of globalization (Alamgir 2009, 35).

On September 3, 2010, there was a protest by 50,000 thousand people from the Coordination

Committee of the Indian Peasant Movement against the WTO in New Delhi. The protest

was held ahead of the WTO meeting on the Doha round. The farmers walked with posters

emphasizing that the WTO should get out of agriculture. The farmers came from the states

of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan,

Maharashtra, Uttranchal and Karnataka. During the protest, farmer representatives met with

Commerce Minister Anand Sharma. Then another protest occurred on October 18, 2012,

hundreds of Indian farmers who are members of the BKU (Bharatiya Kisan Union) took

action against GMO corn (Genetically Modified Organic-genetically engineered) which is a

product of Monsanto. Hundreds of farmers demanded that Monsanto leave India. The Indian

coalition met with Agriculture Minister Paramvir Singh to show their opposition to GMOs.

The Indian farmers' action follows recommendations issued by the Indian Supreme Court.

These recommendations require a 10-year moratorium on all GMO crop trials in India. The

Indian public's opposition to GMOs is widespread as evidence mounts. There is a growing

body of science that shows the negative impact of GMOs on human health and the

environment.

India's Food Safety Policy

Before the mid-1960s India relied on imports and food aid to meet domestic food needs. In

1965 and 1966, India experienced droughts. So the then Indian government, embarked on

agricultural policy reforms and realized that India could not depend on foreign aid to meet

domestic food needs. India adopted policy reforms that focused on the goal of self-

sufficiency in wheat, a staple food other than rice. Not only is India experiencing weather

challenges, it is also experiencing rapid population growth. India's population ranks second

in the world. So the population problem extends to other problems. One of them is the

provision of adequate food for the entire population of India.

In addition, the food price crisis is also a concern for Indian policymakers. During the WTO

Round in Doha, India made a proposal on food security in developing countries. India

considers food issues to be a global concern and concrete steps are needed to deal with food

insecurity. India considers fluctuations in food prices to be a serious matter and it is

necessary to implement subsidies for agricultural and food products for developing

countries.

In Ganguly and Gulati's (2013) study, it was mentioned that India experienced a global food

price crisis in 2007-2008, then India took an export policy for some food commodities

(banning exports for wheat and rice commodities) and did not allow domestic fertilizer

prices to increase according to global prices (especially urea). In mid-2009, the rise in food

prices began with India's increasing drought. Although India's economic growth has

increased, it has experienced poverty. 41.6% of India's population or 456 million people live

on less than $1.25 a day. The policy was in line with India's economic architect and Prime

Minister, Manmohan Singh (Ganguly & Gulati 2013, 1).

In early 2009, Manmohan Singh was re-elected as Prime Minister of India following

previous electoral successes including his success in protecting India from the world food

crisis. World rice prices increased by 16% between June 2007 and June 2008, but the

corresponding increase in food prices was only 7.9% (Gouel 2013, 2). To protect the

existence of grains, in October 2007 India banned the export of non-Basmati rice. The ban

resulted in more stable rice prices in India. India has enacted a food policy backed by food

security in anticipation of the population boom.

India seeks to meet domestic needs in the production of raw materials such as rice and

wheat. The state plays an important role in agricultural policy under the Indian constitution.

In 2009, the Indian government passed a draft national food security act in the hope that

inflation would not affect food prices (Gouel 2013, 22).

In 2013, the Indian government's progressive efforts for food safety were felt. On August 26,

2013, the Indian government launched a food subsidy with an estimated value of 19.8 billion

dollars per year. This policy program is the world's largest food program. Although India's

domestic politics were rowdy, this policy was declared a popular effort ahead of the

elections in May 2014. On September 2, 2013, the Indian parliament approved a 20 billion

dollar budget to feed 800 million people living below the poverty line out of a total of 1.2

billion Indians. On September 12, 2013, the Indian government passed The Indian National

Food Security Act which aims to subsidize food to meet the needs of 1.2 thousand million

people in India. Some of the subsidized food products include rice and wheat. Previously,

the food security law had entered the discussion process in the form of the Indian Food

Security Bill in 2009. However, efforts to accelerate the passage of the marathon Food

Safety Bill were made in 2012. The Food Safety Act regulates the selling price of basic

foodstuffs, especially food subsidies for India's poor.

India is implementing the Food Security Act with food supplies in the market to balance

price increases. The estimated budget is 18 billion dollars. The Food Security Act stipulates

that 75 percent of India's population is rural and 50 percent gets 5 kilograms of grains per

month with a subsidy of 3 rupees (5 cents on the dollar) for rice and 2 rupees per kilogram

for wheat. The aim is to prevent India from starvation and malnutrition. India ranks 65th out

of 79 Global Hunger Index ranking. India's Food Security Act has the dual purpose of

easing food access and supporting domestic farmers. 22 billion dollars for welfare schemes

to subsidize wheat and rice by 67% for 1.2 billion people. The scheme will be massively

expanded to strengthen food provision programs for 218 million people (CNN 2013).

A Review of India's Food Safety Policy

In the midst of the globalization regime, India was able to reveal the presence of the state as

the main actor in determining domestic policies. Globalization is able to make the state seem

'non-sovereign' in determining domestic policies so that it follows the global agenda. The

international regime has formulated policies that 'seem' to reach consensus, but become a

bitter choice and there is no other better choice accepted by developing countries.

Developing countries are experiencing economic struggles in accepting the reality of trade

standardization set by the WTO under the pretext of creating fairer global trade. The

standardization is in the form of price fixing, reduction of subsidies, removal of trade

barriers and disarming developing countries from providing trade protection. So when the

WTO forum meeting is held, it is very rare for developing countries to be able to voice their

aspirations in the forum. India seems to be focused on fighting for its national interests in

agriculture. At the Doha Round of the WTO, India made a proposal on the amount of

subsidies for agriculture. At the WTO meeting in Bali, the articulation of India's interest in

food subsidies was very evident.

India as a country with a high population certainly has threat perceptions. One of the

perceived threats is food security. Amidst the threat of climate change that could affect

agricultural yields, a number of threats lurking in food security are apparent, namely trade

liberalization will encourage imported food products to enter India, hence the potential

threat of price instability. In addition, if the government does not subsidize food, it will

affect the purchasing power of food. If food prices increase and the poor cannot afford food,

the threat of starvation becomes fatal. In addition, food security is closely related to

agriculture. Agricultural subsidies are also given to farmers so that farmers are able to

maintain food security to meet domestic food needs.

Maitra and Zainulbhai (2013) noted that India currently has around 70 percent of India's

population lives in rural areas. Rural dwellers face the reality of being entangled in poverty.

As many as 300 million rural Indians live below the poverty line; the reading level is only

46% and only one in five families have access to basic sanitation. Moreover, two-thirds of

India's population (around 833 million people) live in rural areas. The agricultural sector

contributes 14% to GDP (Gross Domestic Product). India has achieved self-sufficiency in

food grains (rice and wheat) since the mid-1990s, with production increasing from 130

million tons in 1980 to 240 million tons in 2010. Today India is the world's third agricultural

producer, after China and the United States, with revenues of about 260 billion dollars per

year (McKinsey 2013, 247).

As a percentage of agriculture to GDP, food subsidies increased from 1.8 percent to 5.8

percent during 1991-1992 and 2010-2011. Food subsidies, which increased in proportion to

economic growth every year, averaged 17.8 percent during the 1990s, stabilized between

2002-2003 and 2006-2007 as food grain commodities experienced modest price increases

(Sharma 2012, 2). The Indian government uses subsidies as an instrument for domestic

policy. While subsidies tend to be popular with the public, food subsidies are particularly

strategic to curb India's high poverty rate.

India is able to formulate national interests in terms of food safety. The presence of the Food

Safety Act is the basis of policy in the pursuit of India's national interests. Facing the 'threat'

of globalization, India is able to build a foundation to withstand the threat. Although the

establishment of policies related to domestic politics used can be beneficial for certain

domestic political interests, this food safety policy is a long-term policy in an effort to

protect human security for Indian citizens. In addition to formulating policies, India is also

able to fight for its national interests in international forums. India is confidently able to

fight for its national interests and be firm by rejecting unilateral agreements proposed by

developed countries. Although India did not make an alliance with other countries in

rejecting the draft proposed by the WTO, India was able to pressure developed countries to

reduce their 'egoism' to agree on policies regarding the agreement on the amount of

agricultural subsidies. A clear and directed national policy makes the articulation of interests

voiced by the Indian delegation at the WTO have a clear and directive message strong and

measurable basis. In some ways, India is considered consistent in voicing its national

interests when facing the WTO. Even India's actions were followed by several other

developing countries that voiced the same thing.

Based on the notion of dependency, the globalization regime clearly divides the power of

countries belonging to the core and periphery. India has prepared itself to fortify against the

threat of economic globalization. Globalization has led to increasingly blurred lines of

sovereignty. India chooses to maintain its sovereignty over food. In addition to protecting

the majority of Indians who rely on the agricultural sector, price fluctuations can be

suppressed due to local products with purchasing power tailored to the majority of Indians.

In addition, the economic globalization regime demands the reduction of subsidies to the

elimination of subsidies for agriculture. India can afford not to compromise on the amount

of subsidies. Subsidies are a concern for policy makers to protect essential commodities.

Summary

The WTO meeting in Bali made history with the decision to increase the amount of food

subsidies by 15%. India made history in the WTO negotiations by being firm in rejecting the

proposals of developed countries. As a developing country, India was able to influence

several other developing countries to support India's proposal in the WTO forum. Although

India's demands were successfully made into an agreement, there were a number of

consequences such as restrictions on trade in Indian products. The WTO agreement was able

to coincide with India's new domestic policy that was rolled out along with the passing of

the Food Safety Act of 2013. India reflects on the negative impacts of its WTO membership.

The poor have suffered the most from WTO policies implemented in India. So India rose up

by organizing a strategy to fight the WTO with a food safety bargaining position that

became one of the WTO's concerns.

Globalization poses a threat to state sovereignty due to a country's membership in a

multilateral forum that requires the state to abide by the rules of the international regime.

Globalization has not shown a positive side for third world countries due to the rules of the

game that benefit developed countries. Free trade flows have consequences for resource

ownership natural resources by multinational companies as a form of foreign direct

investment. So, if there is no intervention from the government, it is certain that food

sovereignty will be threatened. In addition, the easy option of implementing food imports is

not an option for the Indian government. In addition to ensuring food needs, the Indian

government also has an interest in protecting domestic agricultural products. Domestic food

products are the foundation for fulfilling domestic food needs. India prefers to make

regulations to strengthen food sovereignty and subsidize food products. Although, India is

still an attraction for foreign investment and even the world's food retail center as part of the

consequences of economic globalization. However, India's food policy is sufficient to

accommodate human security.