Is Trump counsellor Navarro right about India? Modi govt responds point by point

When former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro accused India of financing Vladimir Putin’s war machine, the Narendra Modi government's response was swift and firm. In a detailed rebuttal, India rejected the charge that its imports of Russian oil undermined Western sanctions, insisting that its actions have stabilised global energy markets rather than funded Moscow’s military campaign.

I see it this way:

Oil imports as global stabiliser, not lifeline to Moscow

American economist Navarro was the senior counsellor for trade and manufacturing to US President Donald Trump, a position that was abolished months after his appointment. Still, with the air of a spokesperson of the Trump administration, he claimed that President Donald Trump’s new 50% tariffs on Indian imports were a necessary step to cut off “the financial lifeline India has extended to Putin’s war machine”. India’s counterargument is that this is a wilful misreading of the global oil market.

India emphasised that its Russian crude purchases prevented oil prices from spiralling to catastrophic levels. With Russia accounting for 10% of global supply, any sudden withdrawal would have pushed prices above $200 per barrel. By continuing to import, India says it has prevented a worldwide energy shock.

Officials noted that Western leaders themselves have acknowledged this benefit. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Ambassador Eric Garcetti, and diplomat Geoffrey Pyatt all admitted India’s role in preventing a spike in global prices.

Transactions outside the dollar

Navarro alleged that India used American consumer dollars to fund Russian oil. India dismissed this as misleading. Transactions with Russian suppliers are settled through traders in third countries, often in currencies such as the UAE dirham, not in US dollars.

Furthermore, Indian officials noted that Washington never formally asked New Delhi to stop buying Russian crude. On the contrary, the West encouraged India’s purchases to prevent a price shock.

‘Black market oil’ allegations rejected

Perhaps Navarro’s most incendiary claim was that India was working with “silent Russian partners” to launder black-market oil. India hit back, saying that Russian crude is not sanctioned like Iranian or Venezuelan oil. Instead, it falls under the G7/EU price-cap mechanism, which was explicitly designed to keep oil flowing while limiting Moscow’s profits.

New Delhi argued that if Washington truly wanted to block Russian oil, it could have imposed direct sanctions, but fears of price spikes prevented such a move.

Protecting Indian citizens from soaring prices

Navarro pointed to the surge in Russian crude imports—now over 30% of India’s basket—as evidence of profiteering. India countered that the real motive was shielding 1.4 billion citizens from unbearable costs.

Government-owned oil companies absorbed losses of up to ₹10 per litre on diesel to keep prices stable. In total, they lost around ₹21,000 crore between April 2022 and January 2023. The government also cut fuel taxes, imposed export levies on private refiners, and ensured that domestic supply was never disrupted.

Refining hub or ‘oil laundromat’?

Navarro portrayed India’s refining industry as a laundering operation for Kremlin money. India responded by highlighting its decades-old refining capacity, with 23 refineries exporting to over 150 countries.

Exports of refined petroleum products to Europe surged only because the continent, having banned Russian crude, relied on Indian diesel and jet fuel. “That is not laundering, it is stabilising markets,” New Delhi stated.

India also highlighted the fact that 70% of refined products from imported crude, including Russian oil, are consumed domestically, rather than being exported.

Trade and defence cooperation with the US

On trade, Navarro attacked India’s $50 billion deficit with the United States and accused New Delhi of using American dollars to bankroll Moscow. India retorted that the US runs far larger deficits with China and the EU, while also selling billions in aircraft, LNG, defence equipment, and technology to India.

Navarro also criticised India’s continuing defence ties with Russia while seeking sensitive US technology. India rejected the “freeloading” label, citing significant investments in joint projects, including GE jet engine production, MQ-9 drones, and broader Indo-Pacific cooperation.

Scapegoating India

Finally, Navarro argued that Trump’s 50% tariffs are a corrective measure and that the “road to peace in Ukraine runs through New Delhi”. India dismissed this as political scapegoating, saying it has consistently called for peace and diplomacy at the United Nations.

India concluded its rebuttal by insisting that it acted responsibly within global frameworks: “Without India, prices would have spiralled and Western economies would have faced a far greater crisis. Scapegoating India is propaganda, not policy.”