Farmers’ Delhi March 2026: Why Khanauri Is Barricaded and What the India-US Trade Deal Has to Do With It

The farmers arrived on foot. Haryana answered with concrete barricades, barbed wire, water cannons and riot-control vehicles.

Jagjit Singh Dallewal and a group of farmers had planned to begin a 228-kilometre march from Data Singh Wala near the Khanauri border to Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Instead, they spread bedding on the roadside and prepared to spend the night where the journey had begun. Haryana Police say the marchers do not have permission to enter the state. Dallewal says only 51 farmers were to walk the full route and that the number could be reduced further. Three rounds of talks produced no breakthrough.

The immediate disagreement concerns permission to march. The dispute driving the mobilisation is considerably bigger. Farm groups fear the interim India-US trade arrangement will expose Indian agriculture to cheaper, heavily subsidised American produce. The government insists that sensitive sectors, including staple grains and dairy, remain protected and that the agreement will create export opportunities. The march has also revived the unfinished demands of earlier farmers’ protests: a legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price, debt relief, implementation of the Swaminathan Commission formula and withdrawal of cases filed during previous agitations. Here is why the farmers are back at Khanauri, what the trade agreement actually says and where the latest confrontation could go next.

What is happening at the Khanauri border?

Haryana Police have sealed the Khanauri-Data Singh Wala crossing to stop farmers from entering the state and marching towards Delhi. Authorities erected five layers of barricades and deployed concrete blocks, barbed wire, water cannons and riot-control vehicles. Prohibitory orders were also imposed in the area, while traffic was diverted to alternative routes. Jind Superintendent of Police Kuldeep Singh said the farmers would not be allowed to proceed because they did not have permission for the march. After being stopped, the protesters announced that they would sit peacefully beside the road at Khanauri.

Who is leading the march?

The march is being led by Jagjit Singh Dallewal, president of the Bharatiya Kisan Union Ekta Sidhupur and a prominent leader of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (Non-Political). The organisation is distinct from the larger Samyukta Kisan Morcha coalition that spearheaded the 2020-21 agitation against the three farm laws, although the groups share several demands. Dallewal has remained one of the principal faces of the agitation for a statutory MSP guarantee. He previously undertook a prolonged hunger strike at Khanauri over farmers’ demands. The latest mobilisation has been named the “Kisan Bachao Padyatra”.

How many farmers planned to march?

The organisers said 51 farmers from different parts of India would walk the entire route, accompanied by around 200 volunteers and supporters. During negotiations, Haryana officials reportedly asked the organisers to reduce the number. Dallewal said the group was willing to bring the number of permanent marchers down from 51 to 41. The organisers maintain that the march would be peaceful, disciplined and conducted on foot without disrupting traffic. Haryana authorities have not accepted that assurance as sufficient reason to permit the march.

Where were the farmers planning to go?

The padyatra was to cover approximately 228 kilometres from Data Singh Wala to Jantar Mantar. The proposed route ran through Narwana, Uchana, Khatkar Toll, Jind, Ludana, Gohana, Israna and Samalkha before reaching the Singhu border and entering Delhi. The march was reportedly scheduled to conclude with a farmers’ panchayat in the capital on August 29. The date of departure was also chosen to commemorate a farmer who died during an earlier phase of the Khanauri agitation.

Why did talks with the Haryana government fail?

Three rounds of talks between government officials and representatives of the SKM (Non-Political) failed to resolve the standoff. Haryana officials reportedly offered to arrange a meeting with Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini. Dallewal rejected that proposal and sought a meeting with the Union agriculture minister instead. His argument was that the principal dispute concerns the India-US trade agreement, which falls outside the Haryana chief minister’s authority. The state agreed to release farmers reportedly detained before the march, but it did not remove the barricades or permit the group to proceed.

Why are farmers protesting against the India-US trade deal?

Farm groups fear that tariff reductions will allow cheaper American agricultural products to enter India and depress domestic prices. American farms are generally larger, more mechanised and supported by substantial government assistance. Indian farmers typically operate much smaller holdings and have less access to technology, storage, insurance and cheap credit. The protesters argue that competition between the two systems would not occur on equal terms. If lower-priced American produce enters India in large quantities, they fear local farmers will be forced to sell at unsustainable rates. Their concerns extend beyond crops. They want agriculture, dairy, poultry, fisheries and allied activities excluded from the trade agreement. Dallewal has accused the government of avoiding scrutiny by preventing farmers from carrying those questions to Delhi.

What agricultural access has India offered the US?

The interim framework provides for India to eliminate or reduce tariffs on a range of American food and agricultural products. The list released by the White House includes dried distillers’ grains used in animal feed, red sorghum, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits. It also refers to additional products and commitments to address non-tariff barriers affecting American food and agricultural exports. In return, the US agreed to apply an 18 per cent reciprocal tariff to Indian goods and remove or reduce tariffs on specified products, subject to the agreement’s successful conclusion and implementation. The framework is part of negotiations towards a broader Bilateral Trade Agreement. Its stated terms can be read in the US-India joint statement published by the White House.

Does the deal open all of Indian agriculture to American imports?

No. The government says between 90 and 95 per cent of Indian agricultural products have been excluded from the agreement. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said protected categories include dairy, rice, wheat, poultry and several fruits and vegetables, according to Reuters. Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has also insisted that staple grains, millets and dairy remain protected. He said the agreement could help Indian exports such as rice, spices and textiles, benefiting agricultural producers and cotton farmers. The government’s detailed defence of the agreement appears in a Press Information Bureau release. Farm groups remain unconvinced. They argue that even selective concessions can destabilise particular crops, lower market prices and set a precedent for further agricultural access under the eventual bilateral agreement.

If major crops are protected, why are farmers still worried?

The dispute concerns both the products included now and the concessions that may follow. The interim framework says India and the US will continue negotiating wider market access under a broader Bilateral Trade Agreement. Farmers fear sensitive agricultural sectors could return to the negotiating table later. They also want the complete product-level commitments, tariff schedules, quotas and safeguard mechanisms placed in the public domain. Soybean oil, nuts, fruit and animal-feed products may not include rice or wheat, but they still affect Indian growers and connected markets. Cheaper oil imports, for example, can influence domestic oilseed prices. Farm organisations therefore reject the argument that protecting a majority of agricultural tariff lines eliminates every risk. They want agriculture and allied sectors kept outside the trade negotiations altogether.

Is the India-US agreement only a proposal?

No. A framework for an interim agreement has already been announced. The two governments released key terms in February 2026 and committed to implementing the framework while continuing negotiations on the wider Bilateral Trade Agreement. Some farmer leaders continue to describe it as a “proposed deal” because the complete legal text, schedules and broader trade negotiations remain unfinished or subject to further action. The distinction matters. The political commitment and principal concessions have been announced, but the full trade relationship is still evolving.

What is the demand for a legal MSP guarantee?

Farmers want the government legally obligated to procure crops at a declared Minimum Support Price or ensure that no buyer purchases below it. The Centre currently announces MSPs for 22 mandated crops and a fair and remunerative price for sugarcane. An announced MSP, however, does not guarantee that every farmer can sell every covered crop to the government at that price. Procurement is concentrated in particular crops and states. Wheat and paddy farmers in Punjab and Haryana benefit from a relatively extensive procurement network, while producers of pulses, oilseeds and other crops often sell at market prices below MSP. A legal guarantee could give farmers greater price protection, but its design remains contested. Questions include whether the government must purchase all produce, whether private buyers can be forced to pay MSP and how such a system would affect markets, storage and public expenditure.

What is the Swaminathan Commission’s C2+50 formula?

The formula links MSP to the comprehensive cost of cultivation. “C2” includes paid-out expenses on inputs, the imputed value of family labour, rental value of owned land and interest on fixed capital. Farmers want MSP fixed at least 50 per cent above this comprehensive cost. The National Commission on Farmers headed by agricultural scientist MS Swaminathan recommended remunerative prices to protect cultivators from chronic losses and market volatility. The government says its MSP calculations provide a return of at least 50 per cent over a specified measure of production cost. Farmer organisations argue that the calculation does not fully apply the comprehensive C2 benchmark they demand.

What are the farmers’ other demands?

The march has revived several issues carried forward from earlier agitations. Farmers want comprehensive debt relief, a higher fair and remunerative price for sugarcane, implementation of written assurances made by the Centre and withdrawal of cases registered during previous protests. They are also seeking protection for dairy, poultry, fisheries and other allied sectors from trade concessions. These demands show that the latest agitation is not solely about the India-US agreement. The trade deal has become the immediate trigger for a longer struggle over prices, debt and the structure of Indian agricultural policy.

Why has the march been blocked if organisers say it is peaceful?

The Haryana administration says the march does not have the required permission and has imposed restrictions to preserve public order. Governments can regulate marches based on traffic, security and the possibility of disruption. The farmers argue that those powers are being used disproportionately against a small group travelling on foot. Dallewal has pointed to the scale of the barricading as evidence that the government, rather than the protesters, is blocking the road. The administration’s concern is also shaped by the recent history of farmer mobilisations. Earlier marches towards Delhi produced prolonged confrontations at the Punjab-Haryana border, highway closures and clashes between protesters and police. The present group says those precedents should not be used to deny a peaceful padyatra automatically.

Have farmers recently been stopped from reaching Delhi before?

Yes. On July 21, Haryana Police stopped around 1,000 Punjab farmers attempting to reach a Kisan Mahapanchayat in Delhi against the trade agreement. The Shambhu border was sealed with barricades and cement blocks. Farmers ended that protest after detained colleagues were released and officials accepted a memorandum. Khanauri and Shambhu also became the principal protest sites during the 2024-25 agitation for an MSP law and other demands. Farmers camped at the two borders for more than a year before being removed. The latest barricades have therefore returned the confrontation to a familiar geography.

Can the courts intervene?

Dallewal has appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court to take cognisance of the standoff and help create a route forward. That appeal is political and public at this stage. It does not by itself mean either court has opened proceedings or ordered Haryana to permit the march. Any legal challenge would have to balance the protesters’ rights to movement, assembly and expression against restrictions imposed for public order and traffic management. Courts can examine whether those restrictions are lawful and proportionate. They do not normally negotiate the underlying farm and trade policies.

What happens next?

The farmers have indicated that they will remain peacefully at Khanauri while seeking a meeting with the Union agriculture minister. The Haryana government must decide whether to permit a smaller march, offer another round of talks or maintain the blockade. The Centre must decide whether it will engage directly with Dallewal’s group over the trade agreement and MSP. A prolonged sit-in could draw more farmers to the border, turning a deliberately limited padyatra into a larger mobilisation. That is the irony at Khanauri. Fifty-one farmers set out to walk to Delhi. By stopping them at the first barricade, the government may have given their protest a much bigger stage.

(With inputs from ANI)