India navigates energy pressure after Trump’s claims, opposition critique
By Anjali Sharma
WASHINGTON- US President Donald Trump on Thursday asserted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured him India would cease buying oil from Russia, have sparked a fresh political and diplomatic stir both within India and on the international stage.
Trump’s statement, made to reporters in Washington, seemed to claim credit for influencing India’s energy policy, saying, “I was not happy that India was buying oil (from Russia). And he (Modi) assured me today that they will not be buying oil from Russia. That’s a big stop.”
The claim triggered a swift and multifaceted response. India’s Ministry of External Affairs reaffirmed its sovereign right to shape its energy policy based on national interests, stating that “India is a significant importer of oil and gas” and that its “consistent priority” remains safeguarding the interests of Indian consumers amid a highly volatile global energy market.
The government emphasized that its import policies are driven by the twin goals of stable energy prices and secure supplies, with diversification and broad-based sourcing as key pillars.
This pragmatic stance echoes India’s ongoing efforts over the past decade to expand energy procurement from multiple partners, including the United States, while balancing geopolitical realities.
The current US administration’s willingness to deepen energy cooperation with India augurs well for future collaboration that respects India’s sovereign choices.
Russia Ambassador to India Denis Alipov underscored the benefits of Russian oil to the Indian economy and stated Moscow would not interfere in India’s bilateral decisions with the US.
“India and the US are independent in their decisions,” he noted, reaffirming Russia’s commitment to its longstanding energy partnership with India.
On the domestic front, opposition voices seized on Trump’s comments to criticize the government’s handling of foreign relations.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Modi of displaying subservience to Trump, listing a series of actions including India’s silence on the alleged oil deal, repeated congratulatory messages to Trump, and missed diplomatic engagements.
Gandhi’s critique reflects broader concerns about India’s diplomatic balancing act amid competing global pressures.
The core issue extends beyond political point-scoring to a fundamental truth about energy security in a developing nation. India’s vast population and growing economy require uninterrupted, affordable energy supplies — an objective that must sometimes transcend geopolitical allegiances.
India’s approach, anchored in diversification, market responsiveness, and careful diplomacy, illustrates the complex calculus that emerging economies must navigate when global energy markets are increasingly politicized.
The narrative that India is simply yielding to external pressure overlooks the nuanced realities of energy demand, supply chain constraints, and the imperatives of economic growth.
As energy policy becomes ever more entwined with international geopolitics, India’s message is clear: energy security is about sustaining livelihoods and development, not merely geopolitical posturing. The international community would do well to recognize this perspective and engage India with respect and cooperation rather than coercion.
In the final analysis, the controversy around Trump’s claims and the ensuing political backlash in India highlight the challenges faced by democracies striving to balance national interests with global alliances in an era of shifting power dynamics and energy uncertainties.
