India is not an enemy: A rebuttal to Tom Sharpe’s misinformed critique

In a recent opinion piece titled  “India is an enemy, not a friend or a neutral,”  published in The Telegraph on July 1, 2025, former Royal Navy officer Tom Sharpe launched a scathing and provocative attack on India, accusing it of duplicity in its relationship with Russia and questioning its global role. He went so far as to label India “an enemy,” alleging that its continued trade with Russia—particularly in oil—directly supports President Vladimir Putin’s war effort in Ukraine. He did not even spare the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Sharpe wrote: “Modi is quite willing to finance Putin if it means cheaper oil: in this, he is an enemy of the West, not a friend and not a neutral.”

Such accusations reflect a deep misunderstanding of India’s geopolitical compulsions, strategic autonomy, and complex regional dynamics. The West’s criticism reeks of the very duplicity it accuses India of.

Europe’s Double Standards on Energy and Morality

First, let’s be clear: Europe continues to buy oil and natural gas from Russia—directly and indirectly—often through third-party countries, including India. In fact, European imports of  Russian LNG reached a record 17.8 million tonnes in 2024 , despite public claims of reducing dependence on Russian energy. Meanwhile, India’s purchase of discounted Russian crude helped stabilise global energy markets.

As  Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri rightly noted , without India’s intervention, “oil prices could have surged to $200 per barrel, triggering global inflation that would have hurt even the very countries now criticising India”. Europe thus maintains moral superiority while quietly benefiting from India’s strategic choices.

Moreover, India is home to the world’s largest population. As a developing country, it has a moral responsibility to prioritise the well-being of its citizens. Purchasing oil at inflated prices would have risked pushing millions into poverty and deepened socioeconomic distress. Ensuring affordable energy is not a luxury for India—it is a necessity tied to livelihoods, food security, and social stability.

Furthermore, India has consistently called for diplomacy and dialogue in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Prime Minister Modi’s statement that “ this is not an era of war”  was welcomed globally—including by the United Nations and the G20. If the West wants to prolong the war for geopolitical reasons, what more can India do?

Selective Outrage

While quick to judge India’s ties with Russia, Western nations have been conspicuously silent on Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism in India. How often has Europe unequivocally condemned Pakistan for attacks like the recent Pahalgam massacre, which killed 26 innocent civilians?

When it comes to Kashmir, Western media often adopts a tone that  echoes Pakistan’s narrative , ignoring decades of terrorism India has endured. Instead of supporting India’s right to defend itself, they question how many fighter jets India lost or how its weapon platforms performed during retaliatory operations like Operation Bandar or Operation Sindoor.

Even in direct interviews with senior Indian military officials, Western media often highlight selective elements to fit a predetermined narrative. For instance, in an interview with Bloomberg at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan discussed a broad range of strategic issues, including India’s evolving military posture and response mechanisms. Yet Bloomberg’s headline chose to focus narrowly on a single point: “ India Confirms It Lost Fighter Jets in Recent Pakistan Conflict.”  This type of reporting reflects an undue obsession with losses rather than an objective analysis of the broader strategic picture.

This selective focus shows a lack of sensitivity to India’s security concerns and a deliberate strategy to downplay the capabilities of India’s defence infrastructure—especially when those platforms are of Russian origin.

India’s Defence Legacy, Strategic Constraints and Eurasian Context

India’s defence relationship with Russia dates back to the 1960s. Over 60 per cent of India’s military hardware is of Russian origin.  According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) ,  Russia accounted for 36 per cent of India’s total arms imports between 2019 and 2023, making it India’s largest defence supplier. These are not just purchases; they represent decades of strategic integration, maintenance protocols, joint development, and training. Defense ties aren’t replaced overnight.

India shares a live, hostile border with China—unlike Europe, which is geographically removed but still obsessed with containing China. From the 1962 war to the deadly Galwan clashes in 2020, China poses a real and ongoing threat to Indian sovereignty. The West must understand that India needs to engage with Russia to prevent an unholy Russia-China axis. Ironically, it is the West’s sanctions that have pushed Moscow closer to Beijing. India’s Russia engagement offers Moscow an alternative to becoming fully dependent on China—an outcome neither India nor the West desires.

India’s relationship with Russia also has a  Eurasian dimension. In Central Asia, India plays a balancing role that even Russia appreciates. Moscow doesn’t want China to dominate this region, which is why India is a key member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). New Delhi has invested in connectivity projects like the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), and participates in SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), asserting its influence in the region. This alignment benefits Western interests too, as unchecked Chinese expansion across Eurasia contradicts the very grand national security strategies developed by the US and its allies.

Moreover, isolating a country like Russia completely is historically dangerous. Isolation breeds aggression and irrationality. Engagement, even limited, can keep a state tied to international norms. In that sense, India’s continued engagement with Russia contributes to strategic stability—something the West fails to appreciate.

India’s Developmental role in Its Neighbourhood

In his critique, Sharpe even implies that India adopts a self-serving, interventionist posture in its neighbourhood—suggesting that its regional policy operates on the principle of “India first and the rest of you be damned.” This is factually incorrect and deeply unfair. India has pursued a non-reciprocal development policy with its neighbours—building hospitals, schools, bridges, dams, and offering scholarships and humanitarian assistance.

From Afghanistan to Sri Lanka ,  India’s people-centric interventions have improved lives without seeking political returns. For instance, India has invested  nearly $3 billion in reconstruction and development projects in Afghanistan ,  including the Afghan Parliament building, the Salma Dam, Zaranj-Delaram Highway, and more than 400 community development projects.

One of the most notable Indian contributions is the Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health in Kabul—the only pediatric hospital in Afghanistan—entirely funded and supported by India. Many Afghans continue to express deep gratitude toward India, acknowledging its consistent support in infrastructure building, education, and healthcare, even after the US withdrawal in 2021.

In Sri Lanka, during its unprecedented economic crisis in 2022, India was the first and only country to extend substantial emergency assistance, amounting to over $4 billion, through credit lines, currency swaps, and humanitarian aid.

Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe, in a speech in Parliament and later interviews, publicly acknowledged this,  saying : “India was the first country to help us and continues to assist us in our recovery. We are grateful for their timely and crucial support.”

Similar sentiments have been echoed by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and current President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. Sri Lanka’s Parliament Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena went even further,  stating : “India saved us; otherwise, there would have been another bloodbath for all of us,” highlighting the critical role India played in averting a national catastrophe.

Yes, there are tensions with some neighbours, but these often stem from internal political dynamics, Chinese influence, and sometimes even Western interference—as seen recently in Bangladesh.

Lectures from the West Ring Hollow

The West should be the last to lecture others on flouting global rules. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, Western interventions have left behind wreckage and instability. Consider the Kohinoor diamond, now set in the British Crown—a potent emblem of colonial plunder rather than a sign of Indian duplicity. Originally mined in what is now Andhra Pradesh, the 105-carat  Kohinoor  was seized by the British East India Company from the young Sikh Maharaja Duleep Singh in 1849 under the Treaty of Lahore, making it a “symbol of conquest.” London’s Tower of London Crown Jewels exhibit now explicitly labels it as “taken by the East India Company,” and Indian scholars call it “a small but festering bruise” in postcolonial relations.

The Kohinoor’s presence in Britain is a daily reminder of imperial exploitation. Meanwhile, India’s rise today is not a product of colonial extraction but of perseverance, democracy, and self-reliance. So before lecturing others on global norms, Western powers should reflect on their own legacy of conquest and moral compromise.

India Is Not Sitting on the Fence

Tom Sharpe said India must “choose a side.” What he fails to realise is that strategic autonomy is a side. Choosing not to be part of binary Cold War-style alignments is a legitimate policy choice. India does not take dictation. It is a confident, civilisational power that protects its sovereignty and interests.

India is not sitting on the fence —it is navigating a uniquely complex environment with two hostile neighbours: China and Pakistan. Recent Indian military assessments have confirmed that Beijing and Islamabad are increasingly coordinating their strategies against India. As the Indian Army’s Deputy Chief recently stated, China is using Pakistan as a “live lab”—a  “strategy of killing with a borrowed knife.”

Conclusion

The West must learn to understand India on its own terms, not through Eurocentric or Cold War binaries. India has strategic compulsions, historical contexts, and regional realities that the West—especially its media and commentators—routinely ignore.

Strategic autonomy is not a betrayal. It’s a responsible global behaviour by a sovereign power with its own interests. If the West continues to judge India through a narrow, self-serving lens, it risks alienating a vital democratic partner in the most consequential region of the 21st century.

Imran Khurshid is a visiting research fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.