On Thursday, the Indian government subtly challenged President Trump’s declaration that India would stop purchasing Russian oil. While not outright rejecting his remarks, New Delhi’s measured response highlights its intention to sidestep a public dispute and conclude a protracted trade disagreement with Washington.
India’s foreign ministry issued a statement that conspicuously omitted any pledge from Prime Minister Narendra Modi regarding Russian oil. Instead, it emphasized the nation’s consistent strategy of diversifying its oil suppliers.
This cautious approach underscores Mr. Modi’s efforts to carefully navigate relations with the Trump administration. His goal is to resolve substantial U.S. tariffs and restore stability to a bilateral relationship that has been meticulously built over the last two decades.
President Trump publicly stated on Wednesday that the Indian leader had personally “assured me today that he will not be buying Russian oil,” a move his administration links to undermining Russia’s war in Ukraine. This follows an August decision by the Trump administration to levy an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian imports, compounding an existing 25 percent tariff already in effect as a punitive measure.
During a Thursday news conference, Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for the Indian foreign ministry, stated he was unaware of any recent conversation between the two heads of state.
However, unlike previous instances where Mr. Trump’s assertions about Russian oil purchases were met with strong government denials, Mr. Jaiswal’s tone was notably more cautious. His earlier statement offered an indirect rebuttal, carefully avoiding a direct challenge to the President.
The foreign ministry’s statement affirmed that India’s oil procurement is consistently driven by the need to “safeguard the interests of the Indian consumer in a volatile energy scenario.” It also highlighted the nation’s ongoing efforts to “diversify as appropriate,” which includes increasing oil imports from the United States.
The relationship between the two leaders, once characterized by mutual admiration, has grown strained during the second Trump administration. Tensions escalated after India refuted Mr. Trump’s claim that he had mediated a cease-fire between India and Pakistan following a military confrontation earlier this spring.
Publicly acknowledging that Mr. Modi halted military actions due to U.S. pressure would gravely jeopardize his ‘strongman’ political image in India. Conversely, Mr. Trump, eager to solidify his reputation as a global peacemaker, perceived India’s denial as an affront. This led him to scrutinize India’s continued purchases of Russian oil, a practice New Delhi claims was initially supported by American officials before Trump’s presidency to maintain stable market prices. The subsequent imposition of tariffs has effectively stalled diplomatic relations between the two nations.
Indian officials contend that these tariffs are unjust, noting that other significant importers of Russian oil, such as China, have not incurred comparable penalties.
Harsh V. Pant, a visiting professor of international relations at King’s College London, commented, “If Trump desires a specific behavior from India, publicizing such demands is counterproductive. It makes it politically challenging for any Indian policymaker to appear to be caving to American pressure.”
Recently, both nations have engaged in discreet diplomatic efforts to mend their strained relationship. Trade negotiations have recommenced, and Prime Minister Modi was notably quick to commend Mr. Trump for his role in facilitating a hostage exchange between Israel and Hamas. On October 9th, Modi personally called Trump to extend congratulations and discuss the “good progress achieved in trade negotiations.”
Sergio Gor, a trusted confidante of Mr. Trump and the newly confirmed U.S. ambassador to India, undertook an unusual four-day visit to the country this month prior to officially assuming his post. During this trip, he met with Prime Minister Modi and other senior officials, a departure from typical diplomatic protocol before presenting credentials.
India’s Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar, recently stated in New Delhi that both countries are actively working to resolve their outstanding trade disagreements, aiming to prevent these issues from “percolat[ing] into every dimension of the relationship.”
“We acknowledge the existence of problems and issues, and no one is denying them,” Mr. Jaishankar affirmed. “These matters require negotiation, discussion, and resolution, which is precisely what we are striving to achieve.”
Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of Mr. Modi’s economic advisory council, asserted that India has opted to firmly uphold its national interests and refrain from reacting to what he described as “snide remarks and sometimes what could be deemed as racist remarks against India” made by some of Mr. Trump’s advisors.
He concluded at a recent economic forum, “Overall, our response has been quite restrained.”
According to Indrani Bagchi, a foreign-policy analyst and chief executive of the New Delhi-based Ananta Aspen Center think tank, Mr. Trump’s statements might be a strategic attempt to gain leverage.
“If these are indeed pressure tactics, I do not believe India will yield,” she stated.
Hari Kumar contributed to this report.