India has rejected claims made by White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro, asserting its energy procurement policies are driven by national interests amid growing diplomatic friction with the US over sanctions, trade, and geopolitical strategy.
India has firmly rejected recent comments made by White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro regarding the country’s procurement of Russian crude oil, describing them as “inaccurate and misleading.” The External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal articulated India’s strong disapproval, highlighting the importance of the India-US relationship, which is grounded in mutual respect and a comprehensive global strategic partnership.
Navarro had accused India of being an “oil money laundromat for the Kremlin” and labelled its actions as “strategic freeloading” by continuing to purchase Russian weapons while urging American defence firms to transfer sensitive technologies and establish manufacturing units in India. In a series of pointed social media posts, he argued that if India, the world’s largest democracy, wishes to be treated as a strategic partner by the US, it must change its approach.
These remarks come amid escalating tensions between New Delhi and Washington, following President Donald Trump’s decision to impose steep tariffs on Indian goods. The tariffs include a 25 per cent additional duty specifically targeting India’s import of Russian crude oil, which has already been enforced, with further levies scheduled from late August. India has condemned these measures as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,” questioning why it has been singled out for punitive action while other major importers of Russian oil, such as China, have not faced similar sanctions.
India’s defence of its energy procurement policy revolves around national interest and market dynamics. The country turned to discounted Russian oil after Western sanctions led by the US and European nations shunned Moscow’s supplies in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. Consequently, Russia’s share in India’s oil imports surged from a negligible 1.7 per cent in 2019-20 to over 35 per cent in 2024-25, making Russia India’s biggest oil supplier. Indian Oil Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has dismissed accusations suggesting that India is profiteering from these discounted Russian imports. Writing in an editorial for The Hindu, he argued that India’s oil purchases have helped stabilise global markets and averted a potential surge in oil prices to as high as $200 per barrel.
Critics, including Navarro and others within segments of the US administration, characterise India’s continued trade with Russia as indirectly financing Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine. An opinion piece by a White House official contended that a cycle of trade sees US consumers buying Indian goods, with India then using profits to purchase discounted Russian crude oil. This oil is refined and exported globally, thus allowing Russia to circumvent sanctions and sustain its military operations. The conflict has already resulted in over 300,000 deaths and heightened NATO’s security challenges.
However, some analysts point to inconsistencies in the US approach. Despite the harsh stance on India, other countries including the European Union, China, Turkey, and even the US itself continue substantial trade with Russia, particularly in energy and critical goods such as fertilisers and nuclear materials. This disparity has been noted in critiques of the Trump administration’s abrupt and focused criticism of India’s Russian oil imports, especially given the context of global energy market disruptions caused by the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Domestically, Navarro’s remarks have sparked controversy beyond diplomatic channels. His allegations were perceived as not only offensive but also were widely condemned across political lines in India. In particular, inflammatory comments linking certain social groups to profiteering from Russian oil triggered a strong backlash for their inaccuracy and insensitivity.
In summary, India’s rejection of Peter Navarro’s statements underscores ongoing frictions in India-US relations shaped by the complex interplay of geopolitics, energy security, and trade. While India maintains its choices are based on sovereign national interests within a volatile global energy market, the US administration’s punitive trade measures and vocal criticisms reflect broader tensions that are yet to be resolved.
Source: Noah Wire Services
