India’s push to expand Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has once again run into a familiar fault line: the tension between global trade ambitions and domestic agricultural interests. The recent concern flagged over apple imports highlights how trade liberalisation, if not carefully sequenced and safeguarded, can unsettle vulnerable farming communities—particularly in hill states like Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, where apples are not just a crop but an economic lifeline.FTAs are designed to lower tariffs, improve market access and integrate economies into global value chains. For a country like India, they are also strategic tools—meant to counter protectionism, attract investment and boost exports. However, agriculture has always been a sensitive sector in such negotiations. Apples illustrate why. Imported apples, mainly from countries with large-scale, mechanised orchards and heavy subsidies, often land in Indian markets at competitive prices. When tariffs are reduced under FTAs, domestic growers—who face higher input costs, fragmented landholdings and climate risks—struggle to compete. The concern being raised by policymakers and grower associations is not hypothetical. Past trade concessions have already led to a surge in apple imports, squeezing local producers during peak harvest seasons. Any further tariff relaxation without robust safeguards risks deepening distress in hill economies, where alternative livelihood options are limited. This is particularly worrying at a time when climate change, erratic snowfall and rising costs are already eroding farm incomes. At the same time, it would be simplistic to argue against FTAs outright. India cannot afford to remain insulated in an increasingly interconnected global economy. Export-oriented sectors, from pharmaceuticals to services, benefit significantly from such agreements. The challenge, therefore, is balance. Trade policy must be nuanced enough to protect sensitive sectors while still allowing the broader economy to gain. This calls for a more calibrated approach. First, India must insist on strong safeguard mechanisms in FTAs—such as tariff-rate quotas, seasonal protections and snap-back clauses—that allow temporary protection if imports surge. Second, domestic competitiveness cannot be ignored. Investment in cold storage, grading, logistics, research on climate-resilient apple varieties and better market access for growers is essential. Protection without productivity gains only postpones the problem. Finally, transparency and consultation matter. Farmers’ voices are often heard after agreements are signed, not during negotiations. Bringing state governments and grower groups into the discussion early would make trade policy more credible and sustainable. The apple import debate is ultimately a reminder that trade is not just about numbers and tariffs—it is about people and livelihoods. India’s FTA strategy will succeed only if it carries its farmers along, rather than leaving them exposed to the cold winds of global competition.