You got Brahmins profiteering at the expense of the Indian people. We need that to stop, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said on Fox News as he accused India of laundering Russian oil and defended a 50 per cent US tariff on Indian goods.
He spoke after Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. The timing heightened the exchange between Washington and New Delhi.
Navarro said, “India is nothing but a laundromat for the Kremlin.” He claimed Indian refiners buy discounted Russian crude, process it and sell the finished products at a premium abroad. “What happened? Well, the Russian refiners went in and got into bed with big oil India. Putin gives (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi a discount on the crude. They refine it and they ship it to Europe, Africa and Asia at a big premium and they make a ton of money,” he said on Fox News.
He tied the profits to the conflict in Ukraine. “It kills Ukrainians,” Navarro said. “And what do we have to do as taxpayers? We’ve got to send them more money,” he added on Fox News.
Navarro defended the Trump administration’s tariffs on India. He framed the 50 per cent levy as a response to New Delhi’s trade approach. “India is the Maharaja of tariffs. They export us a bunch of stuff and won’t let us sell to them,” he said on Fox News. “They export us a bunch of stuff. They won't let US sell to them. So, who gets hurt? Workers in America, taxpayers in America, Ukrainians in cities get killed by Russian drones,” he said.
He also noted there is “a little over 50 per cent levy on China” and questioned how much higher US tariffs could go without harming domestic interests.
Navarro acknowledged Modi as “a great leader” yet asked, “I don't understand why he is getting into bed with Putin and Xi Jinping when he's the biggest democracy in the world,” in the Fox News interview. He said he wanted ordinary Indians to understand the consequences: “I would just say the Indian people, please, understand what's going on here. The Brahmins are profiteering at the expense of the Indian people. We need that to stop,” Navarro told Fox News.
Navarro acknowledged Modi as “a great leader” yet asked, “I don't understand why he is getting into bed with Putin and Xi Jinping when he's the biggest democracy in the world,” in the Fox News interview. He said he wanted ordinary Indians to understand the consequences: “I would just say the Indian people, please, understand what's going on here. The Brahmins are profiteering at the expense of the Indian people. We need that to stop,” Navarro told Fox News.
Observers noted the choice of words risked inflaming domestic fault lines in India. Critics in the material provided said officials in the Trump administration were attempting to exploit caste divisions as a means of provocation.
Navarro has repeated his argument in other forums. On Bloomberg Television’s Balance of Power he said, “…the taxpayers lose, because we’ve got to fund Modi’s war,” referring to the wider financial pressure on the West, which he links to India’s purchase of discounted Russian oil. In other interviews he expanded that line, saying, “Ukraine comes to us and Europe and says give us more money [for its war]. Everybody in America loses because of what India is doing. Consumers and businesses lose, workers lose because India's high tariffs cause jobs, income and higher wages. The taxpayer lose because we got to fund Modi's war.”
Navarro, who serves as senior Counsellor for Trade and Manufacturing in the White House and is described in the material as a driver behind the tariff policy, has used these arguments to defend the additional 25 per cent levy that raised the US tariff on India to 50 per cent.
Navarro ties trade policy, geopolitical alignment and the humanitarian cost of war into a single argument. He argues that discounted oil buys for refiners enrich intermediaries, bolster Russian revenue and increase financial demands on Western states. The claims raise three practical questions: whether tariffs can or should be used to change another country’s foreign policy, whether trade measures harm domestic workers and consumers, and how public rhetoric may affect diplomatic ties.
Source Name : Economic Times