A new analysis argues that the widespread perception of India as a high-tariff nation is a fallacy, pointing to hard data that reveals its import duties are not only justified but often lower than those of its global peers.
The opinion piece, authored by former Indian Ambassador Dr. Mohan Kumar, acknowledges that while subjective opinions about a country vary, tariffs are quantifiable metrics that should be judged on facts, not perception. It contends that the label “tariff king” is a mischaracterization that collapses under scrutiny.
The article first establishes the critical economic role tariffs play for a developing nation like India, contrasting it with wealthy countries like the United States. For India, tariffs serve two primary functions: protecting vulnerable domestic industries—especially crucial “infant” sectors—and generating essential government revenue.
While India’s tariffs were high in the 1980s, the analysis highlights a consistent trend of liberalization since the 1991 economic reforms and the country’s commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The core of the argument hinges on a key distinction in how tariffs are measured:
- Simple Average Tariff: This metric, which stands at 15.98% for India, is often cited by critics. However, the article calls this figure “academic” because it treats all products equally, regardless of their actual import volume.
- Trade-Weighted Tariff: This measures the average duty actually paid on goods entering the country. On this more meaningful metric, India’s tariff is a modest 4.6%—a figure the author calls “very respectable” and one that directly contradicts the “tariff king” narrative.
The explanation for the gap between these two numbers lies in India’s targeted protection of specific, sensitive sectors. The article provides a robust defense of higher tariffs on agriculture, noting that nearly 50% of India’s population depends on a sector defined by small, unmechanized farms where “farming is about survival and not about commerce.”
“Asking India to open its farm sector to imports is akin to asking it to commit suicide,” Kumar writes, a demand he calls “especially egregious” given the substantial subsidies Western farmers receive.
Furthermore, India’s agricultural tariffs (averaging around 33%) are shown to be far lower than those of other developed nations. The piece cites examples like the European Union (duties up to 261%), Japan (up to 298%), and South Korea, which has tariffs as high as 800% on certain vegetables.
Even India’s simple average tariff is shown to be in line with other developing economies like Bangladesh, Argentina, and Türkiye.
In the technology sector, crucial to U.S. exporters, the analysis finds that American goods often face equal or lower tariffs in India than in other Asian markets. India has a 0% tariff on key IT hardware, semiconductors, and computers, with average rates competitive with or lower than those in Vietnam, China, and Indonesia.
The conclusion is that while India justifiably protects its agricultural and auto sectors for compelling socio-economic reasons, its overall tariff profile is reasonable and does not support the hyperbolic “tariff king” characterization. The narrative, the article suggests, is built on a selective reading of the data rather than the complete picture.
TunisianMonitorOnline (Former Indian Ambassador Dr. Mohan Kumar)
