The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of India issued a sharp rebuttal to comments made by Peter Navarro, senior trade adviser to US President Donald Trump, underscoring that his remarks were “inaccurate and misleading.” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal clarified that India “rejects them obviously,” reaffirming New Delhi’s stance on its independent foreign and energy policies.

Since Donald Trump resumed office, Navarro has targeted India in a series of public attacks, mainly revolving around trade disputes, tariff policies, and India’s continued purchase of Russian crude oil. 

These remarks, made in the wake of Trump’s imposition of 50 per cent punitive tariffs on Indian goods, have added fresh strain to US–India relations already marked by friction on trade and geopolitical alignments.

One of Navarro’s most controversial statements was his attempt to brand the Russia–Ukraine conflict as “Modi’s war.” He claimed that India’s continued import of discounted Russian oil directly contributed to financing Moscow’s military operations, going as far as to propose a 25 per cent reduction in US tariffs if India ceased such purchases.

This suggestion was seen in New Delhi as well as among independent observers as an attempt to coerce India into altering its energy strategy under the guise of strategic alignment. Navarro also amplified this line of attack by accusing India of operating as a “laundromat for the Kremlin,” alleging that refiners were purchasing cheap Russian crude, refining it, and exporting oil products at higher margins to global markets. Stressing that India had imported virtually no Russian crude prior to the Ukraine war, Navarro claimed that such imports had surged to 35 per cent of India’s oil basket, and portrayed this as a deliberate profiteering mechanism rather than a national energy necessity.

Navarro further inflamed the controversy by resorting to divisive rhetoric. In a caste-laden remark, he alleged that “Brahmins” were profiteering from the discounted oil trade “at the expense of Indian people.”

His words, mixing economic critique with culturally offensive categorisations, were widely condemned in India as casteist, misleading, and provocative. Such remarks are viewed by Indian policymakers not just as diplomatic pressure but as rhetoric crafted to build domestic US political narratives, often at India’s expense.

The MEA’s rejection of this commentary underlines New Delhi’s unwillingness to allow foreign advisors to politicise sensitive social hierarchies, particularly when tied to baseless allegations about profiteering.

Beyond energy trade, Navarro also criticised India’s broader foreign policy, particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit.

He characterised Modi’s participation as India “getting in bed” with adversarial powers, and described it as “a shame” to see India aligning with both Moscow and Beijing rather than siding fully with Washington. Such statements highlight the hard line emerging in the Trump administration’s second term: a demand for India to take an explicit anti-Russia and anti-China position, even at the expense of India’s historical non-aligned orientation and its pursuit of multi-vector foreign partnerships.

India, however, has strongly defended its policies as pragmatic and essential. The government has maintained that purchases of Russian oil are critical to stabilising domestic energy prices and shielding its citizens and industries from global supply shocks. Officials argue that energy security is central to India’s economic resilience, and such arrangements neither contravene international law nor undermine its partnerships with democratic allies.

India has also pointed out that large sections of the Western world, particularly European states, had substantially delayed reducing their dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, highlighting the inconsistency in Washington’s criticism. By terming US tariffs and coercive linkage tactics “unjustified,” New Delhi has signalled that it will push back firmly against external pressure when national interests are at stake.

The latest episode underscores the emerging contours of US–India friction under Trump’s second presidency: while Washington views New Delhi as a necessary counterweight to Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific, its protectionist economic policies and absolutist expectations of alignment on Russia have generated mistrust.

Navarro’s hardline accusations reflect a faction within the Trump administration that sees India more as a transactional partner rather than a strategic ally deserving of autonomy. India’s robust rejection of these remarks highlights its intent to decouple sovereign foreign-policy decisions from outside narratives, asserting that national interest–driven policy remains paramount even while deepening ties with the US in other domains such as defence, technology, and critical supply chains.

Based On NDTV Report