Congress leader Anand Sharma on Thursday slammed finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman for criticising India’s stance at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali in 2013, during the UPA government’s tenure, accusing her of "deliberately misinforming" Parliament to justify the "sellout" interim trade deal with the US.

"Just for political gains, Sitharaman was misleading the nation and making an 'orchestrated claim' that the UPA government 'sold out' India's food security at the WTO meeting in Bali," Sharma said in a statement.

"It is unfortunate and shocking that finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman has deliberately misinformed the Parliament on the agreements reached at the ninth WTO Ministerial meeting in Bali in December 2013. In her desperation to justify and defend the sellout interim trade deal with the US, she has levelled an unfair allegation that the Congress-led UPA government had sold out India's right to food security at the WTO meeting in Bali. This is false and incorrect and contradicts the facts on record and WTO's official statement," he added.

Sharma asserted that the finance minister made the claim for political gains and said, "The issue of public stockholding for food security was actually forced by India at the Bali Ministerial meeting and the same were secured and protected."

On Wednesday, Sitharaman had attacked Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, alleging that the Congress-led UPA government surrendered India’s interests before international organisations, including the WTO, and "sold" the interest of the poor and farmers.

She claimed, "It was the Congress which not only sold the interest of the poor and the farmers, but the country itself." Sharma countered by highlighting India’s position at the Bali Ministerial.

"The fact is that it was India's strong and uncompromising stance that forced the issue of procurement of food grains for public stock holding and livelihood on the Bali WTO agenda despite stiff opposition from the US, the European Union, the Cairns group and developed nations. India fought tenaciously and succeeded in putting together a global coalition of developing countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. That forced the developed countries to cede ground, agree to negotiate a permanent solution to change the dated WTO rules, which India rejected at Bali as inherently flawed and unjust. India also secured for itself and other developing countries, protection from any challenge at WTO for any breach until a negotiated Permanent Solution was put in place," he said.

Sharma claimed that the India-led coalition of developing countries had only consented to the WTO agreements after first securing the right of public stockholding of food grains for food security purposes.

Quoting his own statements in Parliament on December 17 and 18, 2013, he said, "The Bali Ministerial was a resounding victory of countries of the global south."

He added, "The issue of securing a peace clause on public stockholding for food security purposes was spearheaded by India in the face of determined opposition from the US and the Cairns Group member countries. However, India succeeded in putting the issue beyond any challenge under the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO through the Bali Declaration, which protected India's public stockholding of foodgrains under the minimum support price programmes from any legal challenge at the WTO."

Sharma also accused Sitharaman of political dishonesty over her 2015 statement as Union commerce minister. "Sitharaman's statement in 2015, when she was the Union commerce minister, saying that the agreement reached at the Bali Ministerial Meeting was a temporary Peace Clause, is factually incorrect and political dishonesty."

He added, "Sitharaman, in an act of political upmanship, had said in Parliament that a permanent agreement would be concluded before December 2015 as per the assurance given by the then US President to PM Modi. However, despite a lapse of 12 years from the Bali Ministerial Declaration and 11 years from the General Council decision, a permanent solution to the problem is yet to be arrived at."