New Delhi: India has not so far committed to stopping oil imports from Russia, and that silence has now moved to the centre of a diplomatic and economic debate. The question came up after President Donald Trump announced that India and the United States had signed a trade deal, under which New Delhi would reduce Russian oil imports and buy more American energy. The claim caused political debate, raised policy questions and put India’s energy security in the global spotlight.
Last year, Washington imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on India over its continued purchase of Russian crude. At that time, India’s Ambassador to Russia Vinay Kumar told Sputnik that the American tariff was unfair, impractical and misguided. He said India’s policy put national interest first and that oil trade followed commercial logic, with Indian companies choosing the most suitable deals available in the market.
Pressure from Western nations has been visible since Russia launched its military attack on Ukraine. India’s oil imports became a point of repeated criticism. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar faced this question on several global platforms over the past three years. He maintained one consistent line. India would decide its own energy security plan, and no external power would dictate that decision.
A fresh layer of discomfort emerged after the India-US trade agreement signed on February 2 that was described as historic by both sides. He wrote that India had agreed to stop buying oil from Russia.
Trump’s claims triggered questions in India. Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal faced the first round during a press conference. He declined to comment and said the Ministry of External Affairs would respond. Two days earlier, when journalists asked Jaishankar about the details of the trade deal, he directed queries toward the commerce ministry. The responses showed institutional caution rather than clarity.
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri addressed the issue during a Monday media briefing, emphasising that India does not rely on a single energy source and has no intention of doing so in the future. He reminded journalists that India is a major importer of oil and gas and described the country as a developing economy that must stay alert to resource availability. Dependence on imported energy stands near 80 to 85 percent, a level that naturally raises concerns about inflation.
According to him, the country’s priority is to protect consumers by ensuring access to adequate energy at reasonable prices through reliable supply chains. The country’s import policy is guided by these objectives and influenced by global economic uncertainties in recent years. Multiple supply options are maintained, with the mix of suppliers adjusting to market conditions. Diversification, he said, strengthens energy security, while actual sourcing decisions rest with public and private oil companies that act on market assessments.
At the same time, Russian presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that India has not communicated any decision to stop purchasing oil from Moscow. His statement added another angle to the developing story.
Strategic analysts began examining India’s silence, interpreting it as a form of diplomatic balancing. They said that any open admission of a commitment to halt Russian imports could be seen as yielding to US pressure, with political critics likely describing it as strategic submission.
They observed that official responses are measured and emphasised supplier diversification without specifying any particular shifts. India has already started reducing its Russian oil intake, a move linked to American pressure dynamics.
Geopolitical analyst Zorawar Daulat Singh wrote that India risked placing energy security and strategic autonomy under strain within the trade dispute deal. He referenced a February 6 White House order and said the order enabled the United States to monitor India’s Russian oil imports. He warned of potential economic pressure if purchases continued.
Strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney also cited the executive order, stating that the US commerce secretary has been tasked with monitoring India’s oil imports. Tariff penalties could be reinstated if purchases from Russia resume, even indirectly, he warned.
He highlighted that refined fuels exported from India could face sanctions if produced from Russian crude. He added that replacing discounted Russian Urals crude with higher-priced American oil could increase India’s annual import bill by roughly $4 billion due to higher transportation costs.
A different perspective came from Wall Street Journal columnist Sadanand Dhume, who argued that the Indian government need not appear hesitant. Describing the decision as pragmatic, he suggested that New Delhi could openly acknowledge that reducing Russian oil purchases helped remove punitive tariffs.
He added that India has alternative suppliers and pointed out that heavy US tariffs would have harmed exports and investment.
Overall, Dhume characterised the trade agreement as a important diplomatic and economic achievement.
Others pointed to declining Russian imports. Citing official trade data, they said imports from Russia fell 27.7 percent year-on-year in October 2025. It dropped from $6.7 billion in October 2024 to $4.8 billion a year later.
The February 6 White House executive order formalised monitoring provisions. Section Four outlined coordination among the US commerce secretary, secretary of state, treasury secretary and senior officials. The mandate focussed on tracking whether India resumed Russian oil imports directly or indirectly. The order stated that if such activity was detected, the commerce secretary could recommend action. The secretary of state would consult officials and advise the president on possible steps, including reimposing the 25 percent tariff on Indian goods.
New Delhi has not issued a formal response to the order. Policy experts say a complete halt of Russian imports within a short timeline is difficult. Existing contracts bind supply commitments. One major refinery, Nayara Energy, sources crude through Russia’s Rosneft. Alternative supply arrangements require time.
Opposition leaders in India have criticised the US conditions. They say trade clauses tied to energy sourcing challenge India’s independent foreign policy. They say such provisions place pressure on sovereign decision-making and warn that similar demands could emerge in future partnerships.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: ZEE News
