Pulses in US-India Trade Deal: A New Concern for Farmers

Q: What are the key concerns surrounding the inclusion of ‘certain pulses’ in the India–US trade deal fact-sheet?

The inclusion of ‘certain pulses’ in the India–US trade deal has generated concern primarily because of ambiguity and tariff implications. The fact-sheet does not specify which pulses are included, but indications suggest lentils and yellow peas may be allowed at reduced or zero duty. Currently, India imposes duties such as 10% on lentils and had earlier imposed 30% on yellow peas, primarily to protect domestic farmers.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.

Q: Why is the pulses trade strategically important for both India and the United States?

For India, pulses are critical for food security and nutritional security, being a primary protein source for a large vegetarian population. India is both a major producer and importer due to demand-supply gaps. Stable import channels help moderate food inflation, especially during production shortfalls.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.

Q: Critically analyse whether reducing tariffs on US pulses would benefit India in the long term.

Reducing tariffs could offer short-term benefits such as lower consumer prices and improved supply stability. For example, during 2023–25, when India allowed duty-free imports of yellow peas, imports surged to over 4 million tonnes, helping ease domestic shortages. Lower prices benefit urban consumers and help control food inflation.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.

The potential inclusion of specific pulses in the trade deal raises alarms among Indian farmers about the impact on their industry and livelihoods.

Surya

•February 11, 2026•5 mins read

Pulses in Trade Deal Stir Farm Concerns

Not Started

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 $136.19 million** worth of pulses from the US, becoming the top buyer. In **2016**, imports rose to **$ 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.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

The inclusion of ‘certain pulses’ in the India–US trade deal has generated concern primarily because of ambiguity and tariff implications. The fact-sheet does not specify which pulses are included, but indications suggest lentils and yellow peas may be allowed at reduced or zero duty. Currently, India imposes duties such as 10% on lentils and had earlier imposed 30% on yellow peas, primarily to protect domestic farmers.

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.

For India, pulses are critical for food security and nutritional security, being a primary protein source for a large vegetarian population. India is both a major producer and importer due to demand-supply gaps. Stable import channels help moderate food inflation, especially during production shortfalls.

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.

Reducing tariffs could offer short-term benefits such as lower consumer prices and improved supply stability. For example, during 2023–25, when India allowed duty-free imports of yellow peas, imports surged to over 4 million tonnes, helping ease domestic shortages. Lower prices benefit urban consumers and help control food inflation.

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.

India sources pulses from multiple countries including Canada, Russia, Australia, Myanmar, and Mozambique. For instance, in 2024–25, Canada and Russia together accounted for over 80% of India’s yellow pea imports, while US exports remained minimal. This diversification reduces dependence on any single supplier.

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.

India’s declining share in US pulses imports can be attributed to multiple factors. First, price competitiveness—US green lentils are often priced higher than supplies from Canada or Australia. Second, increased domestic production of crops like kabuli chana reduced reliance on imports.

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.

Between December 2023 and October 2025, India allowed duty-free imports of yellow peas, resulting in imports of over 4 million tonnes. This policy helped address domestic shortages and stabilise retail prices, protecting consumers from inflationary spikes.

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.