10 July 2025, NIICE Commentary 11464
Satyendra Gupta
In early July 2025, the US Congress advanced the Sanctioning Russia Act, proposing steep tariffs up to 500% on countries importing Russian oil, with India, China and Brazil explicitly named. This move followed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s warning that continued purchase of Russian crude oil would invite secondary sanctions, aimed at pressing the Russian government into a peace deal with Ukraine within 50 days. India, which now sources over 35% of its crude oil from Russia, responded swiftly and firmly. On July 17, Oil, Gas and Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri stated that India felt “No Pressure” and would continue sourcing oil for energy security to its people. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri also echoed this on July 22, emphasising energy security as a top priority and cautioning against Western double standards. Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham intensified rhetoric, threatening to crush economies that fund Russia’s war through oil purchases. The European Union added pressure by announcing a January 2026 ban on refined fuels derived from Russian crude, further complicating India’s $15 billion fuel exports to Europe. This sequence of events underscores a growing rift between Western sanction regimes and India’s strategic autonomy, energy security and pluralistic global norms.
Introduction
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent warning to India, Brazil, and China of “100% secondary sanctions” for continuing energy trade with Russia marks a sharp escalation in pressure politics amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War. India’s response was swift and unequivocal. The Ministry of External Affairs reaffirmed that securing the energy needs of its population is a “responsibility of paramount importance”. It dismissed the threat as emblematic of “double standards” and a lingering “colonial mindset” that the nation would no longer tolerate. This diplomatic exchange has sparked fresh debate on India’s strategic autonomy and its role in challenging legacy power structures in global governance. “Let me reiterate that securing the energy needs of our people is understandably an overriding priority for us. In this endeavour, we are guided by what is on offer in the markets and by the prevailing global circumstances. We would particularly caution against any double standards on the matter,” said Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal on Thursday. India’s foreign policy has long rested on the bedrock of strategic autonomy. This enduring principle allows it to make sovereign decisions guided by national interest rather than external pressures or bloc alignments. This ethos is reflected in India’s decision to continue importing Russian oil, now accounting for nearly 40% of its total crude imports, a move driven by market pragmatism and logistical efficiency. As a country that imports approximately 88% of its energy needs, India’s oil diplomacy remains tethered to affordability and reliability. The Western expectation that India should decouple from Russian energy, despite Europe itself maintaining discreet trade channels with Moscow, exemplifies the asymmetry and inconsistency that New Delhi refuses to endorse.
The MEA’s invocation of “double standards” is rooted in more than just strategic defiance—it reflects India’s evolving doctrine of ethical realism, which harmonises principled foreign policy with pragmatic choices. India’s continued oil trade with Russia is neither ideological nor confrontational; it is a calibrated decision that aligns with its developmental priorities, inflation control, and regional stability. By criticising NATO’s attempt to weaponise trade diplomacy, India affirms its view that moral posturing must be backed by consistency, not selective enforcement.
India’s Ethical Challenge to Western Unilateralism
At a deeper level, this episode reinforces India’s commitment to civilizational diplomacy. The reference to colonial attitudes invokes a historical consciousness—one that resists hierarchical international norms imposed by the Global North. India’s diplomatic culture, shaped by values like Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Dharma, seeks to create pluralistic, inclusive spaces for global dialogue. In contrast, NATO’s ultimatum reflects a unilateralism that India views as outdated in today’s multipolar world.
Ultimately, this episode reveals more than a clash over energy trade—it exposes the shifting fault lines of global leadership. India’s rebuttal to NATO underscores its resolve to shape a world order that is equitable, plural, and respectful of sovereign choices. As the Global South finds its voice, India stands at the forefront, challenging coercive diplomacy and redefining what power and principle should mean in international affairs.
Strategic Sovereignty and Normative Pluralism
From a geopolitical standpoint, India’s position reflects its long-held doctrine of multi-alignment—seeking constructive relations with Russia, the U.S., and regional blocs like ASEAN and BRICS without subordinating its policy choices to any single pole. The issue also underscores the fragile balance between economic interdependence and ideological contestation, especially in the context of the Global South’s call for pluralism in international norms. India’s articulation of civilizational pragmatism—a fusion of realist strategy and ethical diplomacy—emerges as both a foreign policy posture and a counter-narrative to Western exceptionalism.
aThe current episode invites reflection on the broader normative architecture of global governance. Can sanctions be considered legitimate without the backing of multilateral institutions like the UN? Is there room for alternative ethical frameworks that prioritise sovereignty and equity over coercion? India’s rejection of the Sanctioning Russia Act challenges not just a specific bill, but the epistemology of sanctions regimes rooted in power asymmetries. It calls for a reimagining of energy diplomacy as a tool of inclusive development rather than geopolitical stratification.
Policy-wise, India may need to deepen strategic partnerships with emerging energy suppliers, expand its domestic refining capabilities, and accelerate investments in renewable alternatives to reduce future exposure. Equally important is the need to craft and amplify a compelling public diplomacy narrative that resonates with the Global South and fortifies India’s claim to being a normative power. Forums such as SCO, BRICS, and the G20 offer platforms where India can frame this discourse on energy ethics and multipolar governance with greater credibility and continuity.
Conclusion
India’s defiance is not merely an oil arithmetic. It is an assertion of moral agency, economic rationale, and diplomatic conviction. It reaffirms that in the age of contested global orders, sovereignty is not just a legal artefact but a lived principle. And when the price of strategic silence is the erosion of autonomy, speaking out becomes a necessity, not a choice. India successfully navigates the trilemma of energy availability, affordability and sustainability.
Satyendra Gupta is a Research Scholar at the Department of Political Science, P.P.N.P.G. College (Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University), Kanpur, India.
