The provision of subsidy in itself is discriminatory, resembling a bribe for encouraging an act that is protective of its self-interests only. WTO which is an authority and advocate of promoting liberal trade is doing a disservice to itself and to its member states by allowing the practice of subsidy, which creates losers and winner in cotton farming, although the efforts are similar (Jishnu, 2015). The WTO, analysed through the spectre of humanitarianism, does not justify subsidies because it polarises economic gains. The subsidised entities make more money supported by the US government, and the unsubsidised entities in India fail to earn their rightful money, which is diminished and overshadowed by cheaper imports.
The prominence and continuation of discriminatory trade policies is to blame here, which concentrates benefits to one end in the US and exports risk and economic losses to Indian farmers. In addition, the rich farm lobbying groups in the US who are not paying any attention to their dastard impacts on the farmers in India are also to be blamed (Sam, 2016). Humanitarianism requires a business act to be considering the welfare of all those who are to receive an impact, and if the act is found to be creating disturbance in the achievement of its goals, it is to be abandoned. The US subsidies and WTO have failed the theory of humanitarianism completely and are not even repairing the situation and the damage they have inflicted on Indian cotton farmers.
The second theory through which the case is to be observed is Kantian ethics and his categorical imperative theory. As per the categorical imperative, an act that is capable of becoming a universal law instantly when it is enacted is the only act which must be accepted (Jost and Wuerth, 2011). The US subsidy and WTO rules have distorted trade balance and have destroyed all efforts of establishing and maintaining a universal market price (Brown, 2012). When subsidies continue for US cotton farmers, and give rise to difficult situation to Indian farmers, the act is not rational in its moral basis and must be discontinued. The act is not suitable to become a universal law, which is to regard all farmers of US and India to be similar and to be treated without the minutest discrimination (Piggott and Cook, 2006).