In the aftermath of the recently concluded Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in China, sharp comments made by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro have injected fresh tension into India–U.S. relations.

Navarro, known for his hardline stance on economic and strategic issues, launched a scathing attack on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for holding joint discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Labelling the engagement as “shameful,” Navarro accused Modi of aligning India—the world’s largest democracy—with what he termed “the two biggest authoritarian dictators in the world.” He strongly urged New Delhi to distance itself from Moscow, particularly in the energy sector, and instead align strategically with the United States, Europe, and Ukraine.

Navarro’s criticism centred on India’s ongoing purchase of discounted Russian crude oil, an arrangement that has been an economic lifeline for New Delhi in stabilising energy costs but has invited growing scrutiny from Washington and its allies.

As part of a broader punitive framework, the White House has already imposed 50 percent tariffs on Indian exports, including a 25 percent penalty directly tied to Delhi’s continued oil trade with Russia.

Navarro, echoing his earlier remarks made shortly after Modi’s bilateral meeting with Xi Jinping, argued that India’s leaders are compromising principle for profit, alleging that a small elite was benefiting at the cost of ordinary citizens.

His messaging underscores a tightening of Washington’s position that New Delhi must recalibrate its foreign policy choices in line with Western strategic objectives.

Prime Minister Modi, however, struck a contrasting tone in his speech at the SCO, emphasising connectivity, trade enhancement, and trust-building as essential for regional stability and prosperity.

He framed India’s participation as a step towards reinforcing economic cooperation and strengthening multilateral platforms. President Putin amplified this theme, describing the SCO as an alternative foundation for a multipolar Eurasian security order independent of Euro-Atlantic dominance.

He pointed out the greater use of local currencies in intra-SCO trade, portraying this as evidence of independence from Western-driven financial structures.

President Xi Jinping similarly highlighted the organisation’s responsibility to uphold fairness and justice, presenting the SCO as a forum for counterbalancing Western-led institutions.

The exchanges reveal a widening gap between Washington and New Delhi over foreign policy alignment. The U.S. increasingly expects India to stand unequivocally with the West against Russia in light of the continuing Ukraine conflict, while India remains committed to preserving a multi-aligned strategy, balancing ties with the U.S., Russia, and China simultaneously.

This reflects both India’s historical defence and energy dependencies on Russia and its vision of strategic autonomy, a doctrine that resists binary alignment in a multipolar world.

While Navarro’s rhetoric reflects Washington’s frustration, Indian policymakers are unlikely to abandon their pursuit of discounted oil deals and engagement with Eurasian institutions such as the SCO, especially given the economic imperatives and geopolitical interests at play.

Instead, the divergence could deepen trade frictions, strategic misperceptions, and political unease in India–U.S. relations in the near term.

At the same time, India will tread cautiously to ensure that its growing partnership with the U.S.—particularly in defence, technology collaboration, and trade—does not collapse under geopolitical strain.

In conclusion, Navarro’s blunt criticism underscores the underlying fragilities in the India–U.S. relationship at a moment when New Delhi is consolidating its place within multilateral forums like the SCO.

India continues to walk a tightrope—navigating U.S. expectations, Chinese assertiveness, and Russian partnership—while asserting its own vision of strategic autonomy.

How Washington adjusts its tone and policies in response to New Delhi’s tightrope diplomacy will play a decisive role in shaping the trajectory of India–U.S. ties in the coming months.

Based On ANI Report