NEW DELHI, Oct. 5
India and the United States have reached a “plateau” in negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement, with further concessions becoming increasingly difficult for both sides, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said on Monday, signalling that significant differences remain despite months of negotiations.
Sitharaman said negotiations were continuing but acknowledged that the two countries had reached a stage where moving further would require difficult compromises.
Giving or taking more beyond the present point would be “very, very difficult” for both India and the United States, she said at an event in New Delhi.
However, the Finance Minister did not suggest that negotiations had broken down.
She indicated that both sides could continue exploring areas where additional flexibility remained possible.
“Maybe if there are rooms to operate from, both sides would do it,” Sitharaman said.
Her assessment provides one of the clearest indications yet of the difficulties confronting negotiators as New Delhi and Washington attempt to conclude an agreement that has been under discussion since February 2025.
The comments also broadly align with the assessment offered by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer last week.
Greer said an India-US trade agreement was not imminent following his meeting with Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal in the United States.
Sitharaman described the negotiations as difficult and intensely contested.
“It’s been a hard and very vigorously negotiated agreement. The negotiations are still ongoing,” she said.
The central challenge is finding an agreement that both governments can accept without making concessions that would prove economically or politically difficult at home.
India and the US have been negotiating the trade agreement as they seek to deepen their economic relationship while resolving longstanding market-access differences.
The two countries have substantially expanded their strategic relationship in recent years, but trade negotiations have repeatedly demonstrated that strategic convergence does not automatically translate into agreement on commercial issues.
Market access remains particularly sensitive because concessions can directly affect domestic producers and industries.
India has sought to protect its interests while pursuing greater access for Indian goods and services to the American market.
Washington, meanwhile, has pressed for measures aimed at addressing what it considers barriers faced by US exporters.
Sitharaman also pointed to the bilateral trade balance as an important element of Washington’s negotiating position.
Trade between the two countries currently runs in India’s favour, meaning the United States has a deficit in bilateral trade.
“They would want to reduce that imbalance,” Sitharaman said.
The Trump administration has placed particular emphasis on trade deficits in its economic policy, using tariffs and negotiations to press trading partners for greater market access and changes in commercial arrangements.
That approach has added pressure to negotiations with India.
For New Delhi, however, reducing the bilateral imbalance cannot come at the cost of accepting terms that undermine sensitive domestic sectors or India’s wider economic interests.
India has consequently been holding out for better terms in the negotiations.
The description of talks as having reached a plateau is significant because it suggests much of the easier negotiating ground may already have been covered.
What remains are likely to be issues on which concessions carry greater domestic consequences for one or both governments.
That does not necessarily mean an agreement is impossible.
Trade negotiations frequently spend considerable periods stalled around politically sensitive issues before compromises are eventually reached.
But Sitharaman’s remarks temper expectations of an immediate breakthrough.
They also follow recent high-level engagement between India and the United States.
Goyal’s discussions with Greer were intended to advance negotiations, but the US trade representative subsequently said there was “nothing imminent” regarding a deal.
The statements from both governments now point in broadly the same direction: negotiations remain active, but neither side appears ready to make the concessions necessary for an immediate agreement.
That leaves the India-US economic relationship in an unusual position.
Strategic ties between New Delhi and Washington remain important, with cooperation extending across defence, technology, energy and the Indo-Pacific.
The United States is also one of India’s most important trading partners.
Yet precisely because bilateral trade has become so substantial, negotiations over market access have become more consequential.
For Indian exporters, a favourable agreement could provide greater certainty and improved access to the world’s largest economy.
For American companies, a deal could expand opportunities in India’s rapidly growing consumer and industrial markets.
Failure to reach an agreement, however, could prolong uncertainty over tariffs and market-access conditions at a time when the global trading system is already being reshaped by protectionism and geopolitical competition.
The next movement in the negotiations will therefore depend on whether negotiators can identify what Sitharaman described as remaining “rooms to operate from”.
Her choice of the word “plateau” is important.
It does not describe a collapse in negotiations, but it does indicate that the two sides may have exhausted many of the easier compromises.
Breaking through from here will require political decisions about how far each government is prepared to move on the most difficult issues.
For now, both New Delhi and Washington agree on at least one point: negotiations are continuing, but a trade deal is not yet within immediate reach.
