US President Donald Trump has often chided India as the “tariff king’ and his trade adviser Peter Navarro has dubbed India the “tariff maharaja”. Is this mere rhetoric, or is there some truth to these accusations? We examine here the tariff structures of G20 countries which account for roughly 85 per cent of the global GDP, 75 per cent of global trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population. We look specifically at simple averages and trade-weighted tariffs on all goods, as well as separately for agriculture and non-agriculture goods. The numbers tell an interesting story.

For all goods, Turkey has the highest simple average tariff (17.3 per cent), followed by India (16.2 per cent). But if one takes the trade weighted tariff of all goods, India’s score of 12 per cent makes it the “tariff king”. The US, by contrast, stands at 3.3 per cent for simple average, and 2.2 per cent in terms of trade-weighted tariff on all goods (see infographics). No wonder it keeps naming India and other countries, including several American allies, for having high tariff walls.

Lower tariffs are a sign of the competitive strength of the economy, not its weakness. So, if India wants to be a superpower, it must develop its trade competitiveness and lower tariffs well below 10 per cent for all goods. But it cannot be done overnight, although there is ample scope even currently to reduce tariffs. For that, we look at tariffs on agricultural and non-agricultural goods separately.

In agriculture, there is no doubt that India is the “tariff king” with a trade-weighted tariff of 64.3 per cent, although on a simple average tariff basis, South Korea tops with 57 per cent – India has an average of 36.7 per cent. In contrast, the US has a trade-weighted tariff of just 4.2 per cent, the EU 8.7 per cent and China 13.8 per cent.

In case of non-agriculture products, India may not be the king — Argentina leads with a trade weighted tariff at 11.6 per cent — but it follows at 9.2 per cent.

So, overall, India does have higher trade-weighted tariffs, especially for agriculture, making it somewhat of an outlier amongst G20 countries. But why is India so protective towards its agriculture? The reason is simple: India has the highest share of the labour force engaged in agriculture (46 per cent) and the highest population (1.45 billion) to feed, with an average holding size of just around 1 hectare. In contrast, only 2 per cent of the US workforce is engaged in agriculture, for the EU, that figure is 4 per cent, and for China, it is 22 per cent.

Interestingly, China is the largest net importer of agri-products (over $100 billion in 2024), and even the US, which is the biggest agricultural exporter ($182.8 billion), is also a net importer of agriculture ($59 billion). If the world’s two biggest economies can thrive by being net importers of agriculture, India should evaluate its comparative advantage and produce what we do best, and import what others can do more efficiently. Politicians who often claim that “imports are bad” ignore the theory that underpins global trade.

Does it, then, mean India has no scope to lower its agri-tariffs, which are holding back its trade negotiations with the US? We don’t think so. India’s agri-tariffs are not just high, but they are also riddled with irrationalities. Edible oils, one-third of India’s agri-imports, face just 10 per cent duty. Cotton duties have been slashed to zero, and yellow peas face negligible tariffs. Almonds attract a duty of below 15 per cent, while walnuts and chicken legs face duties above 100 per cent. Apples attract a 50 per cent duty, blueberries 30 per cent, and skimmed milk powder is at 60 per cent. Food preparations, such as soft drink concentrates, custard powder, and lactose syrups face a duty of 150 per cent. Nowhere is the paradox starker than in the case of rice. India is the world’s largest exporter, yet it also imposes an import duty of 70 per cent. Such irrational duties cannot be justified to “protect farmers”. Oilseed farmers or cotton farmers are no less important than dairy farmers or those who cultivate walnuts or apples.

The 50 per cent tariff imposed by the US on Indian goods is a wake-up call. India must reform, not retreat. First, rationalise tariffs, independent of Washington’s pressures. We feel no duty should exceed 50 per cent. The raw materials should have the lowest import duty, say 0-10 per cent, non-sensitive goods between 10-20 per cent, sensitive goods from 20-35 per cent, and luxury items between 35-50 per cent. In case of sensitive agri-commodities, it’s better to adopt tariff rate quotas (TRQs) to protect farmers. Second, carry out domestic reforms to raise productivity. India must double agri-R&D to at least 1 per cent of agri-GDP and focus on precision agriculture so that farmers produce more from less. Fertiliser subsidy should be at the top of the reform agenda. Now is the time to rationalise it by giving direct benefit transfer (DBT) to farmers and freeing up the fertiliser prices. Third, value chains must be strengthened. Competitiveness is not just about yields but how efficiently produce moves from farm to fork.

India has already shown the capacity to reform GST rates. Why not tariffs? The principle is similar: A clean, logical structure fosters efficiency, competitiveness, and credibility. Trump is right in calling India the tariff king. India protects agriculture for livelihoods, not for commerce, but excessive protection driven by lobbies and undue caution is ultimately self-defeating. If India truly wants to claim its place as a global superpower, it must shed the tariff maharaja image. Imports do not hurt growth. Instead, they should be part of a growth strategy. Comparative advantage remains as relevant today as when Ricardo wrote of it two centuries ago. The choice is simple: India can persist with its approach to tariffs, inviting retaliation and stifling competitiveness. Or it can embrace reform, rationalise tariffs, invest in innovation, and build efficient value chains. The former path leads to irrelevance, the latter to resilience. India must now move from being a protector of inefficiency to a champion of competitiveness for the sake of its farmers, consumers, and its place in the world.

Gulati is Distinguished Professor and Suntwal is research assistant at ICRIER. Views are personal