The ongoing tensions between the United States and India have escalated following Washington’s latest decision to impose steep tariffs on Indian goods, tied directly to New Delhi’s continued purchase of Russian oil. White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro, speaking in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Balance of Power, sharply criticised India’s stance, accusing the world’s largest democracy of indirectly financing Russia’s war machine in Ukraine.

Navarro’s comments underscore the Biden administration’s growing displeasure with India’s attempts to balance its energy security with geopolitical neutrality, pointing out the contradiction between India’s democratic credentials and its engagement with powers like Russia and China. He warned that India cannot simultaneously claim to be a global democratic leader while deepening ties with nations the US considers authoritarian rivals.

The flashpoint in US-India relations came after President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariff measures on Wednesday, layering an additional 25% duty on Indian goods in response to its oil imports from Russia. This brought total tariffs to an extraordinary 50% – one of the most punitive trade measures the US has enacted against any ally in recent history.

Washington justified the move by arguing that India’s oil purchases not only help sustain Moscow’s war revenue stream but are further complicated by India reselling Russian crude in global markets at a profit.

Trump, in a strongly worded social media post, accused New Delhi of prioritising economic gains over humanitarian concerns, contending that Indian oil trade practices prove it “doesn’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed” as long as domestic energy costs remain low and resale revenues high.

India’s government, however, has rejected Washington’s framing. The Ministry of External Affairs responded by calling the tariffs “unjustified and unreasonable,” highlighting what officials described as an unfair double standard.

While India has been singled out for punishment, the European Union and other US allies continue to maintain significant economic ties with Russia, importing goods and energy products under varying arrangements. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar also pushed back against accusations of duplicity, pointing out that Washington itself had privately encouraged New Delhi to purchase energy from Russia at the onset of the Ukraine crisis, pitching it then as a way to help stabilise global energy markets. From India’s perspective, diversifying energy supplies remains both a matter of sovereignty and a strategic imperative given its immense and rising demand for affordable fuel.

Navarro’s broader comments linked India’s economic choices to its geopolitical alignments. He warned India against building closer ties with China, arguing that aligning with Beijing undermines New Delhi’s own national interests given the history of border conflicts such as Aksai Chin.

Labelling China and Russia as “authoritarians,” Navarro argued that India risks undermining its global democratic image by associating with adversarial governments. Such rhetoric reflects Washington’s growing frustration that New Delhi continues to pursue a fiercely independent foreign policy, even at the cost of straining its relationship with the US.

Interestingly, the Chinese Ambassador to India, Xu Feihong, highlighted this very tension, stating that “silence or compromise only emboldens the bully” and offering Beijing’s support to defend the multilateral trading framework under the WTO. China’s intervention suggests Beijing sees an opportunity to weaken US-India ties, positioning itself as a partner to New Delhi in resisting Washington’s coercive economic policies.

On Capitol Hill, however, dissent is brewing against Trump’s tariff escalation. Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee criticised the move as both counterproductive and selective. They highlighted that China, which imports substantially larger volumes of Russian oil, has been spared from similar punitive measures, raising questions about inconsistency and political motivation.

In a pointed statement, the committee suggested that the administration’s focus on India may not be entirely about Ukraine, instead accusing Trump of undermining the strategic Indo-US partnership while simultaneously hurting American consumers and businesses dependent on Indian goods. This internal criticism underscores the political divide within the United States on how best to manage India’s delicate balancing act between great powers.

Globally, the developments place India in an increasingly precarious position. European countries had drastically reduced oil purchases from Russia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, leaving Asian markets—particularly China, India, and Turkey—as Moscow’s primary lifelines for crude exports. By stepping into this vacuum, India has secured lower oil prices, thereby supporting its domestic economy, but in doing so has drawn sharp scrutiny from the US and its allies.

However, New Delhi views this policy as consistent with its history of strategic autonomy, prioritising national interest over external pressures. Analysts warn that if the tariff confrontation escalates without resolution, it could lead to a damaging trade war, weaken India’s economy, and harm a critical strategic partnership that has been carefully nurtured over decades in response to China’s growing assertiveness.

The latest dispute between Washington and New Delhi is more than just about oil; it reflects deep tensions across trade policy, foreign affairs, and the future of democratic alignments in a rapidly polarising world order. The US has attempted to draw clear lines between democracies and authoritarian regimes, but India refuses to fit neatly into these binaries, continuing instead to balance between East and West.

With punitive tariffs now in place, growing criticism within the US political establishment, and Russia and China leveraging the rift to their advantage, the coming months may prove decisive in determining whether the US-India partnership strengthens under pressure or fractures under competing expectations.

Based On ANI Report