From pulses and agriculture to digital taxes and energy commitments, the US has again tweaked the story of the Indo–US trade deal. India’s refusal to issue its own factsheet raises troubling questions about strategic autonomy and negotiating leverage.
BY PC Bureau
February 11, 2026: For the third time in as many weeks, it is the White House — not New Delhi — that has rewritten the narrative of the so-called “historic” Indo–US trade deal. Once again, the United States has revised its official factsheet, altering key claims on agriculture, digital taxes, and India’s $500 billion purchase “commitment.” And once again, India has responded with silence.
This pattern is not new. What is striking, however, is how routinely Washington now unilaterally announces, edits, and redefines the terms of India’s trade engagements, while New Delhi neither releases a comprehensive factsheet of its own nor publicly clarifies the shifting claims. The optics are unsettling: India, a $3.7 trillion economy and a self-proclaimed rising power, appears to be negotiating from the back foot.
READ: Rohit Pawar’s Bombshell: Ajit Pawar’s Death Was ‘100% Conspiracy’
The Vanishing Pulses Clause: A Quiet Correction
The most revealing revision relates to agricultural imports — particularly pulses, a politically and economically sensitive sector for India.
The original White House factsheet explicitly claimed that India would reduce tariffs on “certain pulses,” along with other agricultural products. This triggered alarm because India is the world’s largest producer and consumer of pulses, and tariff protection is vital for safeguarding millions of small farmers.
Within 24 hours, the pulses reference vanished.
This deletion suggests that India objected after the public release, forcing Washington to retreat. But the question remains: why was such a sensitive concession announced unilaterally by the US in the first place? And why did India not proactively issue its own official document clarifying its red lines?
When negotiations are truly balanced, both sides jointly define outcomes. Here, Washington speaks first — and edits later — while India merely reacts.
Major diplomatic win for India in the US–India trade deal
~“Pulses” dropped from the official US factsheet
~$500B purchase of American goods: wording changed from “commitment” to India “intends”
~“Agriculture” reference also removed.
Modi hai to mumkin hai 💪 pic.twitter.com/svOt9YaRqq
— Frontalforce 🇮🇳 (@FrontalForce) February 11, 2026
From “Committed” to “Intends”: Softening the $500 Billion Claim
Equally telling was the revision of language around India’s alleged “commitment” to purchase over $500 billion of US goods.
The original claim suggested a binding obligation — politically explosive and fiscally unrealistic. The revised version diluted the wording to “intends”, signaling that the earlier assertion overstated India’s concessions.
Once again, the US sets the narrative. India corrects it — quietly.
This recurring walk-back raises troubling questions:
Is Washington deliberately overselling concessions to project diplomatic victories at home?
Or is India failing to impose clarity and discipline in joint communications?
Either way, New Delhi’s strategic messaging deficit is glaring.
Agriculture: India’s Red Line or America’s Bargaining Chip?
The Trump administration also removed references to agricultural goods from its revised text. That matters because India’s farm sector employs nearly half its workforce and contributes about 20% of GDP. Even minor tariff reductions can trigger political backlash and farmer distress.
Despite repeated assurances from Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal that agriculture is protected, the absence of an official Indian factsheet leaves space for speculation, anxiety, and political attack.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge was quick to seize on this vacuum, accusing the government of surrendering strategic autonomy and compromising farmers’ interests. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, the political damage is entirely self-inflicted — caused by India’s refusal to define its own deal publicly.
Digital Taxes: Another Quiet Climbdown
The original White House release claimed that India would eliminate digital services taxes, a demand long pushed by American tech giants. The revised version removed this claim.
Once again, Washington retreats — but only after broadcasting a maximalist position.
This raises an uncomfortable reality: The US appears to be using public factsheets as negotiation pressure tools, projecting aggressive terms, then revising them quietly once resistance emerges. It is diplomatic brinkmanship — and India seems content playing defence.
Strategic Autonomy in the Age of Trumpian Deal-Making
The broader issue is not just trade. It is India’s strategic posture.
From Russian oil to tariffs, agriculture to digital taxes, Washington increasingly frames India’s policy choices as American concessions extracted through leverage.
If India continues allowing the US to dominate public communication, it risks appearing subordinate rather than sovereign, reactive rather than strategic.
This is especially dangerous under Donald Trump, whose diplomacy thrives on spectacle, pressure, and public power plays. For Trump, perception is policy. If India lets Washington define outcomes, it will repeatedly be cast as the weaker partner.
Why Doesn’t India Release Its Own Factsheet?
Perhaps the most baffling aspect of this episode is India’s persistent refusal to publish its own detailed version of the agreement.
No official breakdown.
No sector-wise clarification.
No explicit red lines.
Only selective briefings and reactive denials.
This silence:
Weakens India’s negotiating position,
Fuels political controversy,
And allows Washington to dominate the global narrative.
For a nation that champions strategic autonomy, multipolarity, and economic self-reliance, this communication vacuum is both inexplicable and damaging.
Can India Afford to Remain at Trump’s Whim?
The real question is not whether India secured minor corrections in the factsheet. It is why those corrections were needed at all.
If Indo–US ties are truly between equals, why does only one side publish, revise, and redefine the deal?
If India wants to be taken seriously as a great power, it must assert narrative sovereignty alongside economic sovereignty.
Because in modern diplomacy, who tells the story often matters as much as who wins the negotiation.
And right now, the story of the Indo–US trade deal is being written — and rewritten — in Washington.
