Indians are not ‘arrogant’ and this is not ‘Modi’s war’

US brands Indian tariff policies as being obstructive to US interests.

By Shishir Priyadarshi  

In a recent interview, Peter Navarro, US’ Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, characterised the Russia-Ukraine conflict as “Modi’s war”. He also derided India as being “arrogant” for defending its right to set tariffs, branding its policies as obstructive.

These remarks are rather unfortunate especially in view of the visible restraint being shown by the Indian leadership in not reacting too strongly to the US tariffs and the reasons behind them. But, these remarks, especially those on India’s energy policies and tariffs are as intellectually dishonest as they are diplomatically toxic.

A simplistic and dishonest analysis

In his tirade, Navarro not only undermines the sovereignty of the world’s largest democracy but also tries to shift the blame for a complex international crisis onto India, ignoring the wider realities of global trade, security, and diplomatic engagement.

The averment is that India’s purchase of Russian energy has funded Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, making the conflict "Modi’s war." Nothing could be further from the truth. India’s energy requirements are immense, as befits a rapidly developing nation of over 1.4 billion people. Energy security is not a luxury but an existential necessity. To single India out for purchasing Russian oil is hypocritical at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, since many other countries – including US allies – continue to have significant energy transactions with Moscow.

India, unlike many Western nations, has consistently maintained a nuanced approach to its foreign policy, balancing its strategic autonomy with its international obligations. Its purchase of Russian oil is part of a long-standing, pragmatic energy diversification strategy to avoid over-dependence on any single supplier or region. Navarro’s critique, which astonishingly spares the largest buyer of Russian oil – China – from any penalty, reveals selective outrage designed to serve a particular political narrative.

Tariff policies are a sovereign domain

Navarro brands Indian tariff policies as being obstructive to US interests. This is not just a gross misrepresentation, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of what sovereignty actually means. Every nation imposes tariffs according to its own economic priorities. The US itself is known for aggressive protection of its own industries and currently imposes some of the highest tariffs from amongst the developed countries.

To call India “arrogant” for refusing to capitulate on tariffs is the height of irony from an administration that has imposed 50% tariffs on Indian imports because of Russian oil, even when no such penalties have been levied on China. India’s tariff decisions are informed by the need to protect its farmers and fisherman, not to indulge in what Navarro calls “cheating”.

Equally brazen is Navarro’s claim, aired unapologetically on Bloomberg TV that “everybody in America loses because of what India is doing.” This assertion needs to be questioned.  American consumers, workers, and factories, he alleges, are harmed by Indian tariffs and energy decisions, and American taxpayers are “funding Modi’s war.” Such rhetoric obscures the roots of complex global economic shifts, which are shaped by everything from automation and offshoring to supply chain disruptions and shifting global demand.

To tell average Americans that their economic struggles stem from Indian tariffs and purchases of Russian oil is to insult their intelligence and distract from difficult questions about U.S. competitiveness, education, and innovation. The “war machine” narrative, in particular, ignores the reality that global trade funds governments everywhere, and that diplomatic isolation rarely succeeds without universal participation.

India, as the world’s largest democracy, holds a critical place in the global order. Its foreign policy—rooted in the principles of dialogue, multilateralism, and peaceful resolution—has been one of advocating for the cessation of hostilities and lasting peace in Ukraine.

Conspicuous silence on China’s purchase of Russian oil

To lambast New Delhi as obstructing peace is to ignore its repeated calls for direct dialogue and humanitarian aid, and its balanced engagement with both Western and Eastern powers. Remarks like these belittle India’s constructive role and signal a worrying contempt for independent, democratic action on the world stage.

Perhaps most surprising is Navarro’s silence on China, whose purchases of Russian oil far outpace India’s and whose economic policies are unimpeded by the same punitive tariffs or rhetorical attacks. Why is the largest buyer of Russian oil not held to the same standards? The answer lies in the selective enforcement of American outrage, tailored for strategic convenience rather than any intention to promote honest dialogue.

Narratives like these damage the potential for constructive international cooperation, which is the only path forward. Oil trade is a global phenomenon, driven by the realities of supply and demand, and shaped by millions of daily transactions. Trivializing such complexity for the sake of soundbites and scapegoating India for Washington’s frustrations undermines the shared interests at stake.

Navarro’s comments are a stark reminder of the dangers posed by politicized finger-pointing and the abandonment of diplomatic nuance. His attempt to paint India as the antagonist in a complicated geopolitical drama is not just wrong, it is reckless. India’s approach to energy security, trade, and international relations is rooted in its sovereign rights, democratic principles, and commitment to peaceful progress.

India ought to be recognized for its multifaceted foreign policy and its willingness to act in its own interest while maintaining constructive global engagement. Criticism that ignores these realities is counterproductive, and ultimately, it is global peace and prosperity that suffer from such divisive narratives. Let us strive for mutual respect, honest dialogue, and a commitment to addressing global challenges together. Anything less is an abdication of the responsibility demanded by our interconnected world.

(Shishir Priyadarshi is former Director WTO & President, CRF.)

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.