|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tariffs & truth - Indian rice in US market
|
|
Saturday, 10 January, 2026, 12 : 00 PM [IST]
|
|
Saranya
|
Rice typically does not feature prominently in global political discussions. However, in late 2025, a familiar narrative resurfaced when US President Donald Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Indian rice imports, claiming that India was “dumping” rice into the American market. This statement reignited long-standing disputes surrounding agricultural trade, pricing, and protectionism, placing Indian rice exporters back under the international spotlight. Although the rhetoric seemed intense, industry experts and Indian policymakers have minimised the potential economic consequences. An examination of trade statistics, market dynamics, and the political landscape indicates that the threat of tariffs may be more symbolic than harmful — and highlights how rice has become a strategic lever in broader US-India trade discussions.
India is the world’s largest exporter of rice, accounting for over one-third of all shipments. It dominance is built on scale, diversity, and cost-competitiveness, ranging from mass-market non-basmati rice to upscale, fragrant basmati varieties. However, the United States plays a very small part in this export narrative. Industry estimates and trade data indicate that shipments to the US account for less than 5% of India’s total rice exports and an even smaller share of all agricultural exports. The majority of Indian rice is supplied to markets in West Asia, Africa, and Southeast Asia, where demand is driven by population growth and the need for food security. This disparity is necessary to comprehend why exporters are still mostly untouched by Washington tariff warnings.
In response to complaints from American rice growers that lower-cost imports restrict domestic prices, Donald Trump reaffirmed his condemnation of Indian rice imports. Trump claimed that by framing the issue as one of unfair trade, tariffs might quickly fix the disparity. However, the United States already charges substantial import duties on Indian rice, believed to be around 50%. Instead of creating an entirely new barrier, any more tariff hikes would increase marginal pressure. Trade specialists point out that such taxes typically do not fully halt imports. Rather, they raise consumer retail prices or lower importer and wholesaler profit margins. In specialised markets, such as basmati rice, demand remains relatively inelastic.
The debate centres on Trump accusation that India is dumping rice into the US market. Dumping is clearly described in trade law as exporting commodities at prices lower than their typical value, sometimes accompanied by government subsidies, in order to harm domestic manufacturers. The Indian government and exporters strongly resist this story. They argue that basmati rice, India’s primary export to the United States, is a premium product that is typically more expensive than competing varieties. Exporters also claim that basmati production is not subsidised, and that prices are determined by worldwide demand rather than government intervention. Importantly, the US trade officials have not initiated a formal anti-dumping investigation into Indian rice. Without such proceedings, the dumping complaint becomes political rhetoric rather than a legally valid claim.
Despite the minimal exposure, financial markets reacted swiftly to the tariff remarks. However, exporters themselves seemed calm. Industry representatives stressed that tariffs are typically either absorbed by US buyers or passed on to consumers. Contracts are sometimes pre-negotiated, and considerations other than price, such brand loyalty and quality, drive orders. Furthermore, other exporters argued that higher tariffs would eventually hurt American consumers, particularly ethnic groups for whom Indian rice is a staple diet. The timing and tone of Trump’s remarks suggest that domestic politics may be as influential as trade economics. Agriculture remains a sensitive sector in US electoral politics, and protectionist messaging has long been central to Trump’s political appeal. At the same time, India and the US are engaged in broader, and at times strained, trade negotiations covering technology, manufacturing, and market access. Rice tariffs, while economically limited in impact, offer a visible pressure point — one that resonates with domestic constituencies without threatening core strategic ties.
For India, the response has been cautious rather than confrontational, reflecting a desire to prevent escalation while safeguarding export interests.
Several structural factors explain why the tariff threat is unlikely to significantly disrupt Indian rice exports:
1.Low Market Dependence US accounts for a minor share of India’s rice exports, limiting exposure to unilateral policy changes.
2. Product Differentiation Indian basmati occupies a premium niche with few direct substitutes, reducing price sensitivity.
3. Buyer-Driven Costs Import duties are paid by US importers, not Indian exporters, diluting the direct impact on Indian shipments.
4. Market Diversification Indian exporters have increasingly diversified into Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, reducing reliance on Western markets.
Together, these factors create a buffer that shields the sector from sudden policy shocks. The rice conflict exposes wider weaknesses in the control of international commerce, even though it might not significantly harm exports. The distinction between political message and economic policy is blurred by tariffs imposed without official investigations. The episode highlights the significance of diversification, data-driven diplomacy, and adherence to international trade standards for India. It calls into doubt the long-term viability of tariffs as a means of safeguarding domestic agriculture in an international marketplace for the United States. The renewed tariff threat against Indian rice is less about grains and more about geopolitics, perception, and negotiation strategy. While the rhetoric has unsettled markets and attracted headlines, the fundamentals of India’s rice export sector remain intact. For now, rice exporters appear well-positioned to weather the storm — aided by diversified markets, strong global demand, and the limited role of the US in India’s overall rice trade. Whether the issue escalates or fades will depend less on agricultural economics and more on the broader trajectory of US-India trade relations.
(The author is assistant professor, Department of Foods and Nutrition, Vellalar College for Women, Erode, Tamil Nadu. She can be reached at a.saranya@vcw.ac.in)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|