The White House has quietly revised its official fact sheet On the India-US trade agreement, removing references to “certain pulses” and softening key language related to purchases of US products by India.
These changes bring the document in line with the joint statement issued on February 7 and appear to balance the earlier wording, which had triggered a political and farmer reaction in India.
In the original fact sheet, India was asked to reduce tariffs on “certain pulses” as part of broader trade facilitation measures. Pulses were listed along with products such as sorghum, tree nuts, soybean oil, wine and spirits. However, in the revised version the mention of pulses has been removed entirely.
The inclusion of pulses was sharply criticized by opposition parties and farmers’ organisations, who argued that any tariff cut on such commodities could hurt domestic producers. India is the largest producer and consumer of pulses in the world, and the issue is closely linked to farmers’ income and food security, making it politically sensitive.
‘Committed’ replaced with ‘Intent’
Another important change relates to India’s proposed purchase of US products worth $500 billion. In the earlier version, the language suggested that India was “committed” to such purchases. The revised fact sheet now states that India “intends” to buy US products.
The change from “committed” to “intended” indicates a softer and less binding formulation.
Additionally, the word “agriculture” has been removed from the list describing the categories of products in question, further reducing the specificity of the earlier language.
no official explanation
The White House has not issued any formal clarification regarding these amendments. The changes were made without public announcement.
Observers suggest that these amendments may follow concerns raised by India over the phrasing in the original fact sheet. The adjustment also indicates that discussions on interim trade arrangements are still ongoing and the deal has not yet been finalized.
The evolving language underscores the sensitivity of agricultural trade in India-US talks and highlights the continuing back-and-forth as both sides work toward a mutually acceptable framework.
