DA Editorial Desk | Dhruba Deka
India has long defended its purchases of discounted Russian crude as a matter of simple arithmetic: a country that imports most of its oil must buy where it is cheapest and most reliable. That argument is now being tested as never before. A new United States law, signed on September 18 after clearing the Senate with a large bipartisan majority, gives the American president authority to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on countries that buy Russian energy. The law does not impose the tariffs automatically, but it hangs a heavy sword over New Delhi just as it hopes to conclude a trade deal with Washington.
The timing could hardly be more delicate. On Thursday, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said the first tranche of the India-US trade agreement has been finalised and is in legal drafting, though India wants a competitive tariff advantage over peer countries before it takes effect. US officials, too, speak of talks in their final stage, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to visit India soon. Yet the same Washington that praises the partnership also reserves the power to punish India’s energy choices.
India’s dependence on Russian crude is a product of recent history. After the war in Ukraine began, discounted Russian barrels helped Indian refiners keep fuel prices in check at a time of global turbulence, and Russia became India’s largest supplier. But the picture is already changing. Russia’s share of India’s oil imports fell to about 34 percent in September from roughly 44 to 45 percent in the summer, as refiners bought more from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. India still imported around 5.3 million barrels a day, which shows that diversification is possible without disrupting supply.
This adjustment is prudent, but it should not be mistaken for surrender. The deeper question is who decides India’s energy policy. Energy security is not only about price; it is about reliability, access and freedom of choice. A country of 1.4 billion people cannot allow another government’s tariff threats to dictate where its fuel comes from. At the same time, a tariff of up to 100 percent on Indian exports would hit textiles, jewellery, engineering goods, pharmaceuticals and many other sectors where jobs depend on the American market. A purely defiant stance would carry real costs for workers and small businesses.
Ordinary households have a stake too. Oil is the largest item in India’s import bill, and any sharp rise in the cost of crude eventually reaches the petrol pump, the freight truck and the kitchen. Higher transport costs push up prices of vegetables, grain and daily goods. Any shift in sourcing must therefore be managed carefully, with an eye on inflation, the rupee and the burden on farmers and small traders who feel fuel prices first.
There is also an inconsistency that India is right to highlight. Washington has itself struck a diesel supply arrangement with Moscow this month, even as it warns others against buying Russian oil. Such contradictions weaken the moral case behind the pressure and strengthen India’s argument for evenhanded rules. Delhi should raise the point calmly but firmly in its negotiations.
What, then, should India do? First, keep diversifying, not as a concession but as a long-term strategy. More supply from West Asia, Africa, Latin America and the United States, along with long-term contracts, would reduce vulnerability to any single supplier or any single government’s decisions. Second, build resilience at home: expand strategic petroleum reserves, accelerate renewable energy, biofuels and electric mobility, and improve refining flexibility so that plants can process different grades of crude. Third, negotiate hard. The trade deal should be used to secure clarity that India’s legitimate energy purchases will not trigger punitive tariffs, or at least a transparent process with exemptions. Fourth, coordinate diplomatically with other large buyers and partners, since the burden of such unilateral measures falls on many countries, and collective responses carry more weight.
Transparency matters as well. The government should explain to Parliament and the public what trade-offs it is making, which supply contracts are being reworked and what protections exist for exporters. A policy that affects every household and every factory deserves open debate, not just closed-door negotiation, and an informed public will strengthen the hand of India’s negotiators.
Finally, India should keep talking to all sides, including Moscow, an old partner in defence and energy. Strategic autonomy has been India’s guiding principle for decades. It does not mean refusing every request; it means deciding on the basis of national interest.
The coming days will test that principle. India need not choose between Washington and Moscow. It must choose India: affordable energy, secure supply and open markets. The task for policymakers is to protect all three.