Pulses in US-India Trade Deal: A New Concern for Farmers
Pulses in India–US Trade Deal: Agricultural Sensitivities and Strategic Trade Dynamics
1. Context: Inclusion of Pulses in India–US Trade Fact-Sheet
The recent inclusion of “certain pulses” in the India–US trade deal fact-sheet has generated concern among sections of India’s agricultural community. Pulses were not part of the earlier joint statement for the interim framework, and the lack of clarity regarding specific varieties has intensified apprehensions.
Sources indicate that the US has been pressing for zero-duty access for lentils and yellow peas. Currently, India imposes 10% duty on lentils, while a 30% tariff on yellow peas was announced on December 30, 2025, effective November 1. Any reduction or elimination of tariffs may alter competitive dynamics in India’s pulses market.
Pulses are politically and economically sensitive in India due to their dual role: as a key protein source for consumers and as an income source for small and marginal farmers. Trade liberalisation in this segment must therefore balance food security, inflation control, and farmer welfare.
Trade negotiations involving agricultural commodities require balancing consumer interests and farmer protection. If tariff changes are undertaken without calibrated safeguards, it may create domestic price instability and rural distress.
2. India’s Changing Position in US Pulses Trade
India has historically been an important buyer of US pulses, though its relative importance has fluctuated over time. In 2015, India imported 142.16 million, retaining this position.
However, India’s share later declined due to high US prices, diversification of import sources, and increased domestic production (e.g., kabuli chana). Between 2021 and 2023, India slipped to ninth position among US pulses importers.
In 2024, India imported $74–76 million worth of pulses from the US, making it the fourth-largest buyer after Mexico, Canada, and the EU. Traditionally, India accounts for 8–12% of total US pulses exports, depending on policy conditions.
Trade Position:
- 2015 imports: $136.19 million
- 2016 imports: $142.16 million
- 2024 imports: $74–76 million
- Share in US exports: 8–12%
India’s role in US pulses trade has been policy-sensitive rather than structural. Shifts in tariffs or procurement policy significantly influence bilateral trade flows.
3. India’s Pulses Import Structure and Major Suppliers
India’s pulses imports are diversified, with Canada, Australia, Russia, Myanmar, and Mozambique emerging as major suppliers. Imports from the US remain comparatively small.
In 2023–24, India imported 1.67 million tonnes of lentils, of which ~1.58 million tonnes (95%) came from Australia and Canada. In 2024–25, lentil imports declined to 1.21 million tonnes, with Australia and Canada accounting for ~90%.
Yellow peas have dominated pulses imports in recent years:
- 2023–24: 1.16 million tonnes, with 83% from Canada and Russia.
- 2024–25: 2.16 million tonnes (all-time high), with 82% from Canada and Russia.
During the duty-free window (December 2023–October 2025), India imported 4.06 million tonnes of yellow peas:
-
Canada: 2.21 million tonnes (48%)
-
Russia: 1.19 million tonnes
-
US: 22,275 tonnes
Key Import Data:
- Lentils (2023–24): 1.67 million tonnes
- Yellow peas (2024–25): 2.16 million tonnes
- US share during duty-free period: 22,275 tonnes
India’s pulses import basket is already diversified and dominated by specific partners. Any preferential treatment to one exporter may reconfigure existing supply chains and price competitiveness.
4. US Pulses Production and Export Dependence
According to USDA data, in calendar year 2024, the US harvested pulses over 2.4 million acres, producing approximately 1.6 million metric tonnes.
Of this, 1.22 million tonnes (around 76%) were exported, valued at $1.12 billion, highlighting strong export dependence. Production is concentrated in North Dakota and Montana, which together account for over 80% of US dry pea and lentil output. Washington and Idaho are also significant producers.
These states border Canada, a major global pulses exporter and key supplier to India. Exports are crucial for farm incomes in these regions, explaining political advocacy for improved market access to India.
US Production & Exports (2024):
- Production: 1.6 million metric tonnes
- Harvested area: 2.4 million acres
- Exports: 1.22 million tonnes (76%)
- Export value: $1.12 billion
High export dependence makes US pulses politically sensitive in trade negotiations. Domestic political economy in exporting states shapes bilateral trade diplomacy.
5. Tariff Politics and Bilateral Trade Negotiations
Two US Senators (Steve Daines and Kevin Cramer) urged favourable pulse provisions in trade negotiations, citing the 30% import tariff on yellow peas as placing US producers at a competitive disadvantage.
Their advocacy reflects how agricultural tariffs become focal points in trade diplomacy. For India, tariff flexibility is often used to manage domestic supply shortages and price inflation.
However, pulses are also essential to India’s food security strategy. Excessive imports at zero duty may depress domestic prices, affecting farmer incomes, especially in pulse-growing states.
Tariff Issues:
- Lentils duty: 10%
- Yellow peas tariff (announced Dec 30, 2025): 30%
Trade policy in agriculture operates at the intersection of food security, farmer welfare, and international commitments. Ignoring domestic sensitivities can generate rural political backlash.
6. Strategic Implications for India
Pulses are a critical component of India’s nutritional security, especially for low-income households relying on plant protein. Therefore, imports are often allowed to moderate prices during shortages.
At the same time, India has invested in boosting domestic pulses production to reduce import dependence. Over-liberalisation may undermine these gains by discouraging domestic cultivation.
From a GS-III perspective (Agriculture, Food Security, External Sector), the issue highlights:
- The tension between consumer welfare and producer protection.
- The role of tariffs as price stabilisation tools.
- The impact of trade agreements on domestic agricultural markets.
Long-term stability requires calibrated import policies that protect farmers while ensuring affordable food. A purely trade-centric approach may overlook structural agricultural objectives.
Conclusion
The inclusion of pulses in the India–US trade framework underscores the sensitivity of agricultural commodities in bilateral agreements. While the US seeks greater market access for export-dependent producers, India must balance food security, inflation management, and farmer incomes.
Going forward, a calibrated approach—combining tariff flexibility, safeguard mechanisms, and domestic productivity enhancement—will be essential to align trade diplomacy with sustainable agricultural development.
Attribution
Original content sources and authors
Syllabus classification
How this article maps to GS papers
Main syllabus
GS3AgricultureQuick Q&A
What are the key concerns surrounding the inclusion of ‘certain pulses’ in the India–US trade deal fact-sheet?
For Indian farmers, pulses are both a livelihood and a price-sensitive crop. Sudden duty-free imports from the US could increase supply, depress mandi prices, and undermine Minimum Support Price (MSP) operations. Given that agriculture remains politically sensitive, even marginal tariff concessions can create significant rural backlash.
Thus, the issue is not merely about trade volumes—since US imports are currently small compared to Canada or Australia—but about policy signalling and farmer confidence in the government’s commitment to protect domestic agriculture.
Why is the pulses trade strategically important for both India and the United States?
For the United States, pulses—particularly from North Dakota and Montana—are export-oriented crops. Around 76% of US pulse production is exported, valued at over $1.12 billion in 2024. India has historically been among the top buyers, even ranking first in 2015–16. Hence, access to India’s large market directly affects farm incomes in politically influential US states.
Therefore, pulses trade represents an intersection of food security diplomacy for India and farm export politics for the US, making it strategically sensitive in bilateral negotiations.
Critically analyse whether reducing tariffs on US pulses would benefit India in the long term.
However, long-term implications must be carefully evaluated. India has been promoting self-sufficiency in pulses through higher MSPs and procurement support. Cheap imports could discourage domestic production, increasing dependency on external suppliers. Over-reliance on a few exporters—Canada, Russia, or potentially the US—may expose India to geopolitical and supply risks.
Thus, a calibrated approach is necessary: temporary tariff reductions during shortages, combined with long-term investment in productivity, irrigation, and pulse crop diversification.
How does India’s diversified sourcing pattern influence its bargaining power in pulses trade negotiations?
Such diversified sourcing enhances India’s bargaining power in trade negotiations. It allows India to resist excessive pressure from one country by shifting procurement to alternative exporters. Additionally, competition among exporters can help secure better pricing terms.
However, diversification also requires careful diplomatic balancing, as preferential treatment to one exporter (e.g., zero-duty access for the US) could disrupt existing trade relationships with other suppliers.
What explains India’s decline from being the top buyer of US pulses in 2015–16 to a marginal importer in recent years?
Additionally, logistical advantages of bulk shipping from countries like Canada and Russia have improved cost efficiency. Policy changes such as tariff hikes—like the 30% duty on yellow peas—also discouraged imports from the US.
Thus, India’s shift reflects economic rationality and policy intervention rather than diplomatic disengagement.
As a case study, how does the yellow peas import episode (2023–25) illustrate the trade-off between farmer protection and food price stability?
However, domestic farmers expressed concerns that large-scale imports depressed farm-gate prices, reducing profitability. This created a classic policy dilemma: protecting consumers versus safeguarding producer interests.
The episode illustrates the broader trade-off in agricultural trade policy—balancing food inflation management with farmer income security. A stable long-term strategy may involve variable tariffs linked to domestic output cycles, combined with stronger procurement and storage mechanisms.
Practice questions
1 question for mains preparation