WTO versus the country with 400 million in extreme poverty

Through all those years that I studied math and science and engineering, understanding the materials and working out the problems was not a big deal, even if challenging at times, compared to my life as a student since then for one simple reason which is this--it appears that the subjects I have been studying since graduating from engineering college rarely ever have something called "the correct answer."  Instead, questions and problems always seem to have multiple answers, and every one of them could be argued to be correct--unless, of course, the answers are from the bizarro world of the like of Palin or Bachmann or ...

Thus, there are plenty of instances where I feel like outsourcing the question to somebody and asking them to tell me what I should believe is the correct answer.  But then I do not go by faith and am a skeptic, which means that I am all the time running around those multiple options like a kid in a candy store who cannot decide which one to buy!

Today's exhibit: India rejecting some World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement.  WTF is the issue I simply cannot figure out.  Is it because I have hit the wall and these are beyond my abilities to understand?  I think not; after all, this is about a WTO agreement and not even about the old 8086 Intel chip!

So, what happened, you ask?

India's tough diplomacy blocked a landmark world trade treaty late on Thursday, despite last-ditch talks to rescue what would have been the first global trade reform since the creation of the World Trade Organization 19 years ago.

That is what happened.  Who knew India had such cojones, eh!

There is no confusion over the reporting that India successfully blocked the deal.  And if not for India, it seems like the agreement was all kosher with the rest.

Was that good for India? Bad for India? Good or bad for India's poor? Bad for the world?

source

Turns out there is no correct answer.  Yet another confirmation that this is no electrical engineering problem!

What was India's, ahem, beef?

India wants its farm subsidies exempt from WTO review and wants the latitude to stockpile enough grains to meet the food-security needs of 800 million Indians, who by law are entitled to subsidized food. But Schott says India has taken the Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement hostage until it gets in accord on agriculture. ...
Policy Research Center analyst Bharat Karnad says India fears that once the countries of the developed world obtained Delhi's signature on any agreement, they will lose interest in negotiating an exemption on subsidies for India's farmers. Subsidies can lead to overproduction, then dumping, then sanctions for distorting trade. Karnad says Modi has shrewdly rejected the Bali agreement to get new subsidy rules.

So, that is one way to answer the question.

Another answer lists nine reasons for why:

Trade diplomats in Geneva have said they are "flabbergasted", "astonished" and "dismayed" and described India's position as "hostage-taking" and "suicidal".

Shrewd according to one is suicidal according to another.  Go figure!

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal says that Modi is acting like an economic nationalist. Say what?  Certainly the paper is not comparing Modi to the likes of Hugo Chavez?

The Bali deal already gave the Indians a four-year "peace clause," allowing New Delhi to increase temporarily the otherwise WTO-incompatible subsidies. The four years were to give India time to come up with a more economically defensible system. But the four-year exemption was not enough for Mr. Modi, who demands a permanent exemption to subsidize as much as he wants—and right now, thank you.
How many more rupees does India intend to dole out in the name of "food security"? Many diplomats in WTO headquarters in Geneva would like to know the answer to that question.

I thought that the relatively centrist Brookings Institution might make things clear for me about this food security and subsidy and dole.  Not!  This document is all gobbledygook for me.

The "All-India Convenor of the BJP's Economic Cell," whatever that position means, provides his spirited defense and concludes with this:

the government's tough stand has also taken the wind out off the left parties' sails and robbed them of their stereotyped rhetorical critique of a "sell-out by the government".Finally, the Modi government's line has also sent a clear message to the "neo-liberalisers" and advocates of a "no-holds barred globalisation" that the country's economic interests would be the principal determinant in economic policy making under a BJP regime.

So, who you gonna believe?

Finally, from the proverbial horse's mouth--as in Modi himself:

Should we choose in favour of our farmers or for getting good publicity in the international media? We have chosen the former. We have chosen the interest of the poor people of the country

So, if the interests of the poor are the defense, then the government has way more to be worried about than the WTO, it seems like:

food worth $8.3 billion, or nearly 40% of the total value of annual production, is wasted.
This does not capture the full picture: for example, meat accounts for about 4% of food wastage but 20% of the costs, while 70% of fruit and vegetable output is wasted, accounting for 40% of the total cost. India may be the world’s largest milk producer and grow the second largest quantity of fruits and vegetables (after China), but it is also the world’s biggest waster of food. As a result, fruit and vegetable prices are twice what they would be otherwise, and milk costs 50% more than it should.
It is not only perishable food that is squandered. An estimated 21 million tons of wheat – equivalent to Australia’s entire annual crop – rots or is eaten by insects, owing to inadequate storage and poor management at the government-run Food Corporation of India (FCI).

It is a good thing that I don't have much hair left to pull out ;)