As the long-pending bilateral trade deal between India and the United. States approaches its final phase, an old yet sensitive issue has resurfaced. Influential Republican Senators, representing two of America's largest pulse-producing states, have written to President Donald Trump, urging India to remove tariffs on US pulse exports, while this demand could introduce a new twist into negotiations that have already stretched for nearly a year. While this demand might appear minor, it directly challenges some of India's stringent agricultural policies and its ambition to achieve self-sufficiency in pulses, potentially creating another hurdle for an already delicate deal.
US Senators Raise Concerns Over India's Pulse Tariffs
Republican Senators Steve Daines (Montana) and Kevin Cramer (North Dakota) have explicitly called India's pulse tariffs “unfair” and detrimental to American farmers. In their letter to President Trump on January 16, they highlighted India's dominance as the world's largest consumer of pulses, accounting for approximately 27 percent of global consumption, while the Senators argued that the high tariffs imposed by India prevent US producers from accessing this critical market, causing significant harm to American exporters. Their primary concern revolves around India's announcement last October of a 30 percent tariff on yellow peas, effective from November 1, 2025, while according to the Senators, despite the quality of American products, such measures will severely disadvantage US exporters. They urged Trump to prioritize pulses in any future trade agreement with India. They also recalled that during Trump's first term, they raised this issue before the 2020 trade talks with India, and Trump himself delivered their letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which helped bring American producers to the negotiating table. The lawmakers stated in their letter that as the United States seeks to balance trade inequities, American farmers are ready to help bridge that gap, while if trade opportunities are opened, they possess immense potential to provide food and fuel to the world. In their 2020 letter, written before Trump's India visit that year, the Senators had asserted that “unfair” Indian tariffs on pulses had Notably harmed US pulse producers.
India's Tariff Policy: A Broader Perspective
While the Senators' letter portrays these tariffs as discriminatory against the United States, India's policy on pulses is far more complex and not limited to a single country, while in fact, New Delhi had not imposed any duty on yellow pea imports until March 31, 2026. The subsequent decision to impose tariffs was driven by domestic political economy considerations rather than bilateral trade tensions. Indian farmers, facing falling prices due to an influx of cheap imports, had pressured the government to take action. This was a crucial policy decision aimed at protecting the domestic agricultural sector from instability. Notably, this tariff applies equally to all exporting countries, including Canada, which is one of India's largest pulse suppliers. Because of this, from India's perspective, this measure is a safeguard to protect domestic farmers and stabilize prices, not an action specifically targeting the United States. It reflects India's sovereignty and its right to regulate its agricultural sector to ensure the well-being of its farming community.
A New Twist in Trade Negotiations
Statements from both sides indicate that India-US trade talks are in their final stages. The new US Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, recently acknowledged the complexity of the negotiations while expressing determination to finalize the agreement. India's Commerce Secretary, Rajesh Agarwal, also indicated a few days ago that most issues have been resolved, with only a few matters still under discussion. It's in this context that the Senators' intervention becomes significant. Raising a contentious agricultural demand at this stage risks reopening debates that negotiators might have deliberately postponed to maintain momentum. Pulses, along with dairy production, fall into areas where India has drawn a 'red line'. Agricultural and dairy products have long been among the most challenging sectors in India-US trade talks, while india has repeatedly refused to grant open or tariff-free access to US agricultural products, citing concerns over farmers' livelihoods, food security, and structural differences in the agricultural systems of both countries. For India, this isn't merely an economic issue but also one of social and political sensitivity.
The Critical Role of Agriculture and Food Security in India
Pulses aren't just a commodity for India; they're a primary source of protein for millions, especially families in lower-income groups, while given India's vast population and the imperative of food security, domestic production and availability of pulses are critical national priorities. On top of that, any measure that undermines domestic producers could create significant political risks for the Indian government. The agricultural sector in India represents a massive voting bloc, and protecting farmers' interests is paramount for any administration. This is widely considered a major reason why, despite progress in other areas of the trade agreement, it has not yet been signed. India believes that granting tariff-free access to US agricultural products would harm its own farmers, leading to negative impacts on the rural economy and jeopardizing its food security goals. The government's commitment to its farming community is a cornerstone of its policy framework, making concessions on this front particularly difficult.
Navigating the Path Forward:
Will the Issue Be Resolved?
As the world's largest producer, consumer, and importer of pulses, India has made domestic capacity building a policy priority. Last October, the government approved the Pulses Self-Sufficiency Mission, a six-year initiative running from 2025-26 to 2030-31, with a budget of 11,440 crore rupees. This mission aims to increase pulse production from approximately 24. 2 million tons to 35 million tons, boost productivity from 880 kg per hectare to 1,130 kg per hectare, and develop high-yielding, pest-resistant, and climate-resilient varieties, while production for 2024-25 is already estimated at 25. 23 million tons, with a target of 27 million tons set for 2025-26, while this policy direction clearly indicates that the role of imports will decrease over time, not increase, as India seeks to strengthen its production capacity to meet its domestic needs. Despite these ambitions, India remains a major importer of pulses, having imported a record 7, while 3 million tons in 2024-25. Approximately 15-18 percent of domestic consumption is still met through imports, primarily from Africa, Myanmar, Canada, Russia, and Australia. This dependence creates a paradox: while imports are essential to manage shortages and price volatility, excessive reliance undermines domestic incentives and farmer confidence, while That's why, tariff flexibility becomes a policy instrument that India adjusts based on production cycles and political pressures. Ensuring tariff-free access for US pulses through a trade agreement would. Importantly limit this flexibility, which Indian policymakers are unlikely to accept.
The Senators' demand, while not necessarily delaying the India-US trade agreement, will certainly complicate it. For the United States, domestic agricultural politics, especially in key producing states, can't be overlooked. President Trump will need to be accountable to his constituents, and the agricultural lobby's pressure is significant. For India, making concessions on pulses would run contrary to both its negotiating stance and its strategic investments in agricultural self-sufficiency. This is an issue where the domestic interests of both countries directly clash. Consequently, pulses, much like dairy and other agricultural products, could remain an unresolved issue outside the final agreement. Whether the Trump administration aggressively pursues this issue or quietly sidesteps it will determine if this new demand merely creates tension or reopens cracks that were previously thought to be closed. The resolution of this sensitive issue will play a crucial role in shaping the future direction of trade relations between the two nations.
