The controversy surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump’s imposition of harsh tariffs on Indian goods intensified after White House trade adviser Peter Navarro publicly linked India to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Navarro characterised the war as “Modi’s war,” asserting that India’s decision to buy discounted Russian crude oil has indirectly financed Moscow’s military operations.

His argument rests on the claim that the revenue Russia receives from India’s oil purchases is fuelling the Kremlin’s defence expenditure, thereby prolonging the war in Ukraine and simultaneously increasing pressure on U.S. resources through Kyiv’s appeals for arms and financial aid.

By drawing this link, Navarro sought to amplify pressure on India to scale back or halt energy trade with Russia, even suggesting that Washington could lower the punitive tariffs by 25 percent if New Delhi complied.

The remarks followed the enforcement of Trump’s steep 50 percent tariff on Indian exports—a move that effectively doubled the 25 percent duty introduced earlier in the month. This is the harshest reciprocal duty the United States has imposed on any Asian nation to date.

Reports indicate that this latest round of tariffs will impact more than half of India’s exports to the U.S., particularly goods in labour-intensive industries such as textiles, garments, and jewellery—sectors heavily dependent on the American market.

While certain products in the electronics and pharmaceutical categories remain exempt, trade experts warn that the sweeping tariff actions could severely disrupt bilateral economic ties, undercut India’s competitiveness, and expose small and medium-sized exporters to significant hardships.

Navarro’s rhetoric went beyond economic arguments, extending into cultural and political criticism. He condemned what he described as India’s “arrogant” stance in defending its energy sovereignty, accusing New Delhi of ignoring global security responsibilities.

“India, you’re the biggest democracy in the world, OK, act like one,” Navarro remarked, implying that democratic values should compel India to align with U.S. and allied sanctions rather than pursue discounted oil deals.

He contrasted India’s purchasing practices with America’s economic losses, arguing that U.S. workers, consumers, and taxpayers collectively bear the cost of India’s decisions—through lost jobs, diminished factory output, stagnating wages, and increased taxpayer burdens linked to American aid for Ukraine.

Navarro’s strongly worded statements represent a blend of protectionist trade reasoning and geopolitical narrative-building designed to justify Trump’s tariff escalation.

From India’s perspective, the response has been consistent and grounded in both economic pragmatism and sovereignty. Officials in New Delhi have repeatedly defended the decision to continue purchasing Russian oil, stressing that these imports are vital for maintaining stable domestic energy prices in the face of global volatility.

Policymakers also argue that the U.S. action is disproportionate since other buyers, notably China, have maintained significant levels of crude purchases from Russia without facing secondary punitive tariffs on their exports. New Delhi maintains that it must balance international alignments with domestic energy security and has rejected what it views as unfair U.S. pressure tactics.

By framing tariffs as “unjustified,” India underscores that this punitive trade approach damages longstanding economic relations while also exacerbating inflationary pressures in developing markets.

The broader context highlights how global energy flows were fundamentally reshaped following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. With Western nations, led by the G7, imposing a $60-per-barrel price cap to curb Russian revenues, India emerged as one of the largest buyers of Russian oil, capitalising on steep discounts to ensure affordable fuel supply.

This shift marked a divergence from India’s historical dependence on Middle Eastern crude imports. Ironically, U.S. officials themselves acknowledged that India’s participation in buying capped oil helped stabilise global supply while keeping prices in check.

Nevertheless, Washington’s narrative has since shifted under Trump’s administration, with policymakers framing continued Indian purchases as directly complicit in Moscow’s war financing.

At the geopolitical level, the imposition of secondary tariffs against India alone—despite China’s far larger role in absorbing Russian crude—suggests a selective approach to pressure New Delhi.

Analysts believe this reflects Washington’s focus on recalibrating its trade relationship with India, rather than an even-handed enforcement of sanctions principles.

The Biden administration, prior to Trump, had attempted to balance strategic partnerships with India while quietly urging reductions in Russian oil imports.

Trump’s tariffs mark a departure from that careful diplomacy, replacing cooperative inducements with overt economic punishment and public rebuke.

Navarro’s framing of the Ukraine conflict as “Modi’s war” demonstrates a sharp escalation in U.S. rhetoric that combines protectionist, political, and geopolitical messaging.

While the statement seeks to paint India’s energy procurement strategy as a harmful enabler of Russian aggression, it risks alienating one of Washington’s most important economic and strategic partners in Asia.

India, for its part, views the punitive tariffs as excessive, discriminatory, and a violation of its sovereign right to pursue an independent energy policy.

Unless there is calibrated dialogue and negotiation, the current stand-off could create lasting fissures in U.S.-India relations, destabilise key sectors of India’s export economy, and inject further complexity into the already fragile global energy order shaped by the Russia-Ukraine war.

Based On A NDTV Report