India-US trade talks heading in right direction, Jaishankar says as both sides work to finalise a deal

Jaishankar’s statement shows that India and the United States have made meaningful progress toward a trade agreement. It does not announce a completed deal. The negotiations remain open, and both governments still need to settle outstanding terms before signing.

The talks have reached a stage where there is “more or less an understanding on the trade agreement.” However, the process has become more difficult than expected. Differences over tariffs, market access, and protection for sensitive Indian sectors continue to require careful discussion.

The immediate reality is cautious optimism. The framework announced in February 2026 was followed by changes in US tariff policy, including the Section 301 process. Jaishankar’s comments suggest negotiators are trying to turn broad understanding into final language. Until that happens, businesses still face uncertainty over future duties and market access.

India and the United States are trying to resolve disagreements over tariffs and market access. Tariffs determine the duties products face when crossing borders, while market-access rules determine how easily businesses can sell goods in the other country. Both sides want stronger commercial ties, but each also wants to protect domestic economic interests.

The US tariff framework has changed during the negotiations. The ongoing Section 301 process could lead to additional duties after investigations into foreign trade practices. India is questioning whether it should conclude an agreement while parts of that framework remain unsettled. It needs clearer terms for exporters competing in the American market.

India is also protecting small manufacturers, agricultural producers, and other vulnerable businesses. In September, Jaishankar said the negotiations were more complex than expected. The remaining challenge is to create tariff and access rules that help Indian exporters without placing excessive pressure on sensitive domestic sectors.

A tariff is a charge imposed on goods entering a country. If the United States places a tariff on an Indian product, the importer must pay that duty. The cost may then be reflected in the product’s final American price, depending on how businesses divide the burden.

For example, if an Indian manufacturer sells a product to a US buyer and a new duty is added, the landed cost rises. The importer might accept lower profits, ask the Indian supplier to reduce its price, or charge American customers more. Each choice can make the product less attractive compared with goods from countries facing lower duties.

This matters because India is seeking tariff terms that let its businesses compete effectively with exporters elsewhere. Uncertainty also makes planning harder. Until the agreement is concluded, Indian exporters cannot be certain what duties their products will face in the US market.

The US Section 301 process is a mechanism that allows Washington to investigate foreign trade practices it considers unfair. If the investigation supports action, the United States may impose additional duties. The article identifies the process as one important complication in the negotiations.

Its key mechanism is uncertainty. Indian exporters need to know which duties their products will face in the American market. If the United States is still examining trade practices and could add tariffs later, the final value of a negotiated agreement may be unclear. Businesses may struggle to set prices, plan investment, or commit to supply arrangements.

Jaishankar has questioned when India should conclude an agreement while aspects of the US tariff regime remain unsettled. The talks can therefore make progress while still lacking certainty. Before signing, India wants confidence that agreed terms will provide competitive access rather than be undermined by later tariff decisions.

Trade between India and the United States is important enough to be a major part of their broader relationship. The article describes trade as a significant source of friction and says both countries want to strengthen commercial ties. It also links a settled framework to greater certainty for tariffs, market access, and investment.

The article does not provide a dollar value, trade volume, or precise number of businesses involved. Therefore, its scale cannot be quantified from the supplied text. What it does establish is that the negotiations matter to Indian exporters, US businesses, and domestic sectors on both sides.

The practical importance is clear even without a figure. Businesses need predictable rules to price goods, plan sales, and make investment decisions. A completed agreement could improve certainty, while continued delay would preserve uncertainty over duties and access. The talks also carry diplomatic significance because trade affects the wider India-US relationship.

If India and the United States fail to reach a deal, businesses may continue facing uncertainty over tariffs, market access, and investment. Indian exporters would lack a settled framework for competing in the US market. American businesses would also have less clarity about future trading arrangements with India.

The mechanism is straightforward. Without agreed terms, existing or changing duties and access rules continue to shape prices and commercial decisions. Indian exporters may find it harder to plan sales or compete with suppliers from other countries. At the same time, India’s small manufacturers and agricultural producers could remain concerned about import competition and pressure on sensitive sectors.

A failure to agree would not automatically produce one specific outcome, because the article does not state what rules would follow. It would, however, preserve unresolved questions and potentially prolong diplomatic friction. A deal could put bilateral relations on a better footing; no deal would leave that opportunity unrealised.

Countries negotiate trade agreements because cross-border commerce depends on rules that affect tariffs, market access, and investment. If each country changes its own duties or access conditions alone, businesses may face uncertainty and unequal treatment. Negotiation lets governments discuss reciprocal terms and create a framework both sides can accept.

For India and the United States, the proposed agreement could link better access for businesses with commitments on import duties. It could also address concerns that unilateral tariff changes might harm exporters. India is seeking competitive terms while protecting small manufacturers, agricultural producers, and other sensitive sectors. The United States likewise wants to protect its domestic economic interests.

An agreement cannot remove every disagreement, but it can make trading conditions more predictable. That helps businesses plan prices, sales, and investment. The current talks show why negotiation matters: changing US tariff policy, including Section 301, has complicated the process, while both sides still seek a workable balance.