India pushes back: Why strategic partnership with America cannot be one-sided

White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro, in a strongly worded article in the Financial Times, accused India of cosying up to Russia and China. He alleged that India is “acting as a global clearinghouse for Russian oil, converting embargoed crude into high-value exports while giving Moscow the dollars it needs”. Navarro further warned India: “If India wants to be treated as a strategic partner of the US, it needs to start acting like one.” He attempted to link India’s oil procurement process to funding Russia’s war machinery.

Navarro accused India of selling refined oil to Europe, Africa, and Asia. The EU has imposed a ban on the import of refined oil, effective January 2026; until then, such trade remains legal in Europe — but not acceptable to Navarro. He also criticised India for imposing high tariffs and trade barriers on US goods. Interestingly, there was no mention of China, which imports far more crude oil.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

US Secretary of State Marc Rubio partially justified not placing tariffs on China, stating: “If you were to go after Russian oil sales to China — well, China just refines that oil. That oil is then sold into the global marketplace, and anyone buying that oil would be paying more for it or would need to find alternative sources.” India is following the same process, yet it remains an easier target since China could block the export of critical minerals to the US — as it did in April, responding to Trump’s tariffs.

Commenting on India-US defence deals and India’s relations with Russia and China, Navarro warned that transferring critical technology and opening arms factories in India could risk sharing technology with Russia and China. He ignored the fact that India has never transferred Russian technology to the US despite its close ties with Moscow over the decades. Navarro also implied that the “Make in India” initiative is not conducive to reducing trade deficits.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

But why should the India-US relationship be a one-way street? If the US expects India to be a strategic ally, it must act like one. Imposing high tariffs, stalling trade talks, disregarding India’s political constraints, and expecting India to bow to White House demands are not the actions of an ally. The Trump administration’s approach has strained a partnership carefully nurtured by multiple administrations, reinforcing the perception that the US cannot be fully trusted.

Washington expects India to downgrade its ties with Russia and distance itself from China while maintaining its own close ties with Pakistan — India’s sworn adversary. The US also expects India to support Pakistan’s call for a Nobel Prize for Trump, even though Trump’s actions didn’t merit one. Why should India comply while the US freely pursues its own interests? The US insists its relationships with India and Pakistan exist “on their own levels”, yet criticises India for adopting the same stance regarding Russia and the US.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin personally calls Prime Minister Modi to brief him on the Alaska talks, it underscores the enduring strength of Indo-Russia relations — ties the US cannot break through pressure tactics. If Washington seeks to exploit Pakistan’s mineral wealth, indirectly strengthening its military aimed at India, why should India stop importing Russian oil, even if it indirectly funds the war? True allies don’t threaten one another; they resolve differences through dialogue and cooperation. If the US believes its power is enough to force India to yield, it is gravely mistaken.

The real strategic threat to Washington lies in the strengthening Russia-India-China trilateral and the growing influence of Brics, of which all three are key members. The trilateral, dormant for years, is being revived largely due to US actions. While India might temporarily lose parts of the US market, the US will also lose access to India’s massive market. Defence cooperation may continue, but economic and diplomatic ties are headed toward a cooling period.

India’s ties with Russia are time-tested and resilient. Its neutral stance on the Russo-Ukraine conflict stems from a principled belief: borders should not be altered through military force, as it sets a dangerous precedent that could eventually affect India itself. Meanwhile, the US pushing for concessions from Ukraine to secure a Nobel Prize for Trump exposes how low Washington can stoop to serve political ambitions, disregarding long-term global consequences.

Trade negotiations take time. Trump’s impatience doesn’t change the fact that deals must benefit both nations. For instance, the Indo-UK trade agreement took three years to finalise. Expecting India to comply blindly with US demands, without mutually beneficial alternatives, is unrealistic. While stalled talks may temporarily slow India’s progress, the country’s economy — primarily domestic-driven — continues to grow.

According to Deloitte, the US economy is projected to enter a recession in the fourth quarter of this year and remain there through 2026. Facing US threats, India is already considering trading in local currencies, diversifying its markets, and strengthening its financial infrastructure. Although US tariffs may cause short-term disruption, India’s economic fundamentals provide resilience and recovery capacity. The government is already lowering taxes to support domestic growth.

India will bide its time. This administration in Washington will eventually change, and future leaders may hold different views. Until then, India will adopt a mature, measured approach: avoiding direct confrontation while reducing interaction. India-US relations may slow, but they will not collapse. The world’s oldest and largest democracies — natural partners — are drifting apart, not out of necessity, but because one leader believes he can force the world to follow his tune. India certainly won’t.

The author is a former Indian Army officer, strategic analyst and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.