In a fresh escalation of trade tensions between New Delhi and Washington, the Trump administration, through its trade adviser Peter Navarro, has sharply criticised India’s growing energy reliance on Russia.

Navarro, who has long been considered a trade hawk and a strong advocate of protectionist policies, labeled India as the “Maharaj of tariffs” and accused it of effectively running a “profiteering scheme” by importing heavily discounted Russian crude oil, refining it, and then reselling petroleum products at a premium to markets in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

According to Navarro, this arrangement not only supports Russia’s war effort against Ukraine by providing vital revenue to the Kremlin, but also distorts fair competition in global trade. He reiterated that punitive tariffs of up to 50 per cent on Indian goods—set to take effect on August 27—are a necessary corrective measure to penalize India’s energy partnership with Russia.

Navarro’s accusations underscore a central grievance of the Trump administration: that India, despite being a long-standing strategic partner of the United States, has significantly ramped up imports of Russian oil since the onset of the Ukraine war in February 2022. Prior to the conflict, Russia accounted for barely 1 per cent of India’s oil imports. However, with Western sanctions and G7-imposed price caps driving Moscow to new buyers, India capitalised on discounted supplies, boosting Russia’s share in its crude oil basket to nearly 35 per cent by 2025.

Navarro dismisses India’s justification that these imports are necessary to meet its energy security needs, instead portraying them as a deliberate profit-making exercise by Indian refiners. He framed the practice as tantamount to turning India into a “laundromat for the Kremlin.”

From Washington’s perspective, India’s behaviour represents a dual challenge: economic and geopolitical. Navarro highlighted that American taxpayers are bearing the burden of financing aid to Ukraine, while at the same time India is accused of indirectly funding Moscow’s war machine by continuing oil purchases.

Overlaying this trade dispute is a broader imbalance in US-India commercial relations, marked by tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and what Navarro described as a large trade deficit detrimental to American workers and businesses. The 50 per cent levies, which include an additional 25 per cent duty tied directly to Russian oil purchases, represent some of the highest tariffs the US has imposed on any trade partner, signalling the extent of Washington’s frustration.

For India, the US narrative is perceived as unfair and inconsistent. During his visit to Moscow, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar firmly defended New Delhi’s position, noting that India has repeatedly prioritised energy affordability and stability.

Jaishankar expressed perplexity at the US stance, pointing out that American officials themselves had previously urged India to play a balancing role in global energy markets, which at times included increasing supplies from Russia to prevent price volatility.

Indian officials also argue that energy security is paramount for a population of 1.4 billion people, and that vilifying India while remaining lenient toward larger Russian crude buyers such as China exposes Washington’s double standards.

The fact that the Trump administration has refrained from imposing similar punitive measures against Beijing, despite China being the single largest importer of Russian oil, reinforces India’s suspicion that geopolitical calculations rather than principle are driving US policy choices.

The trade clash has also injected new geopolitical dynamics into Asia. In the wake of escalating tariffs and Trump’s disparaging remarks about India’s economy, New Delhi has cautiously reached out to Beijing to ease longstanding hostilities.

Recent developments include discussions between Indian and Chinese foreign ministers on demarcating disputed border lines, signalling a potential thaw in bilateral ties. China, for its part, has seized the opportunity to draw India closer by voicing support for “upholding the multilateral trading system” and resisting unilateral tariffs imposed by the United States.

This alignment reflects a broader reconfiguration in Asia, where India, while historically aligned with Washington in balancing China’s rise, may recalibrate its approach in response to American economic pressure.

At the heart of this dispute lies a clash of perspectives. The US sees India’s discounted Russian energy imports as undermining sanctions and effectively fuelling bloodshed in Ukraine. India, however, frames the issue around fairness, energy affordability, and autonomy in foreign policy.

The imposition of blanket tariffs at rates as high as 50 per cent risks further straining an already fragile trade relationship between the two democracies. More broadly, the episode reveals contradictions in Washington’s global energy strategy, which tolerates certain behaviours from some partners while punishing others selectively. It also exposes fractures in the US-led sanctions regime against Russia, as major economies like India and China have continued finding ways to sustain energy ties with Moscow despite Western pressure.

The current stand-off over Russian oil imports is emblematic of a deeper and more complex rift in US-India relations. While the Trump administration’s punitive tariffs may reflect mounting frustrations in Washington, they simultaneously risk alienating one of America’s most significant strategic partners in Asia.

For India, the backlash only reinforces the importance of pursuing a diversified foreign policy that safeguards its energy security and hedges against over dependence on any single superpower. If unchecked, this dispute could upend the careful balance India has maintained between aligning with the West, sustaining its traditional friendship with Russia, and managing a wary détente with China—all at a time when global energy markets and security alliances are in profound flux.

Based On NDTV Report