Asleep at the wheel for 4 days? Govt, BJP finally dismiss ‘Brahmins profiteering’ remark by Peter Navarro

Four days after Peter Navarro, a former trade adviser to Donald Trump, accused “Brahmins” of profiteering from India’s discounted oil trade with Russia, the Government of India issued its first official response. The Ministry of External Affairs rejected the charge as both misleading and inaccurate.

As expected from the Narendra Modi government, which has proved more sensitive to attacks on the prime minister than those on the Hindu civilisation, which leftists and 'bhakts' alike believe he is a custodian of, the statement came amid growing unease in New Delhi over Trump’s economic policies, his recent jibes at India, and now a cultural slight that has reignited debate on how caste is misunderstood in the West.

India’s rejection of Navarro’s charge

“We have seen the inaccurate and misleading statements made by Mr (Peter) Navarro and obviously, we reject them,” said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal on Friday. He added that India remained committed to ongoing talks with Washington and to strengthening bilateral ties.

Navarro had made the comments in an interview with the Republican-leaning Fox News. “Look, Modi's a great leader. I don't understand why he's getting into bed with Putin and Xi Jinping when he's the biggest democracy in the world. So I would just simply say to the Indian people: please, understand what's going on here. You've got Brahmins profiteering at the expense of the Indian people. We need that to stop. Yeah, and we'll be watching that closely,” he said.

The use of caste in this context drew immediate criticism from across the political spectrum in India, but not so from the top leaders of the BJP. Remember, in contrast, how the whole government apparatus went after the BBC on the very day it re-ignited the allegations against the then-Gujarat chief minister for the 2002 riots?

Political backlash in India

Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said Navarro’s claim was an attempt to justify tariffs under the guise of cultural commentary. “America should not make baseless statements like this,” he told ANI.

The BJP too broke its silence after four days. Party MP Dinesh Sharma condemned Navarro’s phrasing as “factually wrong, culturally insensitive, and out of context in terms of India's economic decisions.” His intervention marked the ruling party’s first official response, signalling that the government did not want to appear indifferent to the insult, never mind the delay in its reaction.

Trump sharpens his attacks on India

The controversy arises at a challenging time in India-US relations. Donald Trump has repeatedly accused New Delhi of indirectly funding Russia’s war in Ukraine by purchasing oil at discounted prices. On Friday, he used the recently concluded Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in China to take another swipe, posting an image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. “Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest China. May they have a long and prosperous future together!” he wrote.

The POTUS's decision to impose 50% tariffs on Indian goods has already drawn criticism within the US itself, especially after an appeals court ruled that the duties were unlawful. Navarro’s words have now added a cultural provocation to an already tense trade and diplomatic relationship.

How ‘Brahmin’ became a Western metaphor

Navarro’s invocation of “Brahmins” cannot be brushed aside as a clumsy choice of words. It taps into an evolving discourse in the United States, where some activists have campaigned for laws targeting alleged caste discrimination.

A couple of years ago, anti-Brahmin resolutions were pushed in multiple American jurisdictions. They succeeded only in Seattle, Washington, but the damage was done. The word “Brahmin” entered public debate as shorthand for an oppressive class. Indians of Hindu origin fought these measures in other states and prevented their spread, but the idea stuck.

Growing up on Christian lore or, at best, Marxist notions of class conflict, many Americans cannot comprehend the layered reality of the Hindu social order. In their eyes, the world is divided into “haves” and “have-nots”. Every “have” in India is therefore assumed to be a Brahmin. Tell Navarro that Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani are both Baniyas, not Brahmins, and he would likely stare in confusion.

Misconceptions closer home

Ironically, this confusion is not unique to the West. In many parts of rural India, the assumption persists that higher education itself marks a person out as a Brahmin. If a Dalit postgraduate or doctoral scholar conceals his caste and introduces himself in a village, locals often presume he must be a Brahmin.

The difference lies in perception. In the Indian countryside, Brahminhood is equated with knowledge. In the United States, it is equated with wealth. Both are distortions, but they illustrate how the term has been emptied of its original meaning and repurposed as a metaphor.

Weaponising words

Navarro’s choice of words follows a familiar pattern. Critics of Modi often brand him “fascist” despite the impossibility of fascism in India’s fractured and plural political landscape. Here, words no longer carry their literal meaning but are weaponised to label opponents.

Navarro’s use of “Brahmin” mirrors the way some Western academics deploy the word “Aryan” to construct dubious racial theories. Just as Hindu swastikas are casually conflated with Hitler’s hakenkreuz, Navarro misuses “Brahmin” as shorthand for elitism and exploitation. It plays well with an American audience primed to see caste as analogous to class, and it signals opposition to both privilege and Nazism without needing accuracy.

The persistence of ideas

The controversy highlights a deeper issue: Ideas, once seeded, rarely die. When the Cold War ended in 1991, the US congratulated itself on having buried communism. Today, radical leftist thought thrives on American campuses. Likewise, while anti-Brahmin laws failed outside Seattle, the notion that “Brahmin equals oppressor” has lingered.

This persistence explains why Navarro’s framing resonates with sections of the American public. The same intellectual reflex that made “Aryan” a racial category has now made “Brahmin” synonymous with villainy.

Strain in India-US relations

Against this backdrop, Navarro’s remark feeds into a larger narrative of mistrust between India and the US under Trump. Washington views India’s oil purchases from Russia as undermining Western sanctions. New Delhi argues that affordable energy is essential for its economy and that its choices are based on national interest.

Trade friction adds to the strain. The 50% tariff has rattled exporters and raised questions about whether Trump is weaponising economic policy to force strategic alignment. For India, the combination of tariffs, cultural slights and public taunts from Trump risks eroding the goodwill built over decades of bipartisan support in Washington.

Peter Navarro’s careless invocation of “Brahmins” has done more than offend sensibilities in India. It has exposed how poorly understood Indian social categories remain in the West and how quickly they can be weaponised for political effect. For New Delhi, the challenge lies in countering these misconceptions while managing an increasingly fractious relationship with Washington.

As the government’s belated response shows, India cannot afford to let such remarks pass unchecked. At stake is not only its diplomatic standing but also its cultural dignity in a world where words, once twisted into metaphors, seldom return to their original meaning.