At the recently concluded Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Tianjin, China, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s separate meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have triggered a sharp response from senior figures in Washington. The reactions from former Trump administration trade adviser Peter Navarro and current US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent illustrate the growing unease in American policy circles over India’s foreign policy choices at a time of shifting global alliances.
Navarro Calls Modi’s Meetings “A Shame”
Peter Navarro, who served as Donald Trump’s trade adviser and is known for his hardline stance on trade and geopolitical issues, expressed frustration after reports emerged of Modi’s bilateral interactions with Xi and Putin. Speaking to US media outlets, Navarro remarked, “It was a shame to see Modi getting in bed with Xi and Putin. We hope he comes around to us, not Russia.”
He continued his criticism by questioning the strategic rationale behind India’s outreach. “Shame to see Modi, the leader of the biggest democracy, engaging with two of the world’s most authoritarian leaders, Putin and Xi Jinping. Not sure what he is thinking. India has fought both cold and hot wars with China. This alignment is confusing and troubling,” Navarro added.
His comments reflect not only frustration over India’s balancing act but also a wider concern in Washington that New Delhi is not aligning closely enough with the United States at a time when tensions with both Russia and China remain high.
Bessent Offers a Softer Line
In contrast, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took a more measured tone when asked about Modi’s participation at the SCO Summit. While acknowledging the optics of the meetings, Bessent downplayed the significance. “The SCO meeting is largely performative. At the end of the day, India is the most populous democracy in the world. Their values are much closer to ours than to Russia’s,” he said.
Bessent’s remarks signal Washington’s recognition that despite India’s engagement with Russia and China, its democratic credentials and long-standing ties with the West remain central to its global identity. His framing suggests that the Biden administration, like its predecessor, sees India as a critical partner in counterbalancing China’s growing influence, even if short-term frictions persist.
US–India Strains Over Trade and Energy
The sharpness of Navarro’s comments also reflects broader strains in the bilateral relationship. Over the past year, Washington has repeatedly expressed frustration at India’s continued imports of discounted Russian crude oil, even as the West has tried to squeeze Moscow’s revenues in the wake of the Ukraine conflict. At the same time, India has voiced concern over US tariffs on its goods, which have hurt exporters in sectors ranging from textiles to pharmaceuticals.
For American policymakers like Navarro, India’s insistence on maintaining a multipolar foreign policy appears to dilute the effectiveness of US-led sanctions and geopolitical strategies. Critics argue that India cannot claim to stand with democracies while simultaneously deepening ties with authoritarian leaders. Indian officials, however, counter that their approach is driven by national interest and not by alignment with any single power bloc.
Social Media Reactions Highlight Divide
Navarro’s remarks quickly drew attention on social media, where users debated whether Washington was being fair in its criticism. Some pointed out what they saw as hypocrisy, noting that the United States itself continues to maintain strategic dialogues with countries that do not share democratic values. Others argued that India’s decision to engage both with the West and with Eurasian powers like Russia and China reflects its long-standing tradition of strategic autonomy, rather than a betrayal of democratic principles.
Supporters of Modi’s diplomacy highlighted the importance of dialogue with China, given the long and contested border between the two countries. They argued that refusing to engage would only worsen tensions. Meanwhile, critics of Modi within India questioned whether the optics of standing alongside Putin and Xi risked undermining India’s reputation among its Western partners.
India’s Multipolar Strategy
For New Delhi, the SCO Summit was part of a broader effort to assert its place in a multipolar world order. Indian policymakers have repeatedly stated that the country will not be pressured into choosing sides between rival global powers. Instead, India seeks to maximize its own strategic space, maintaining strong ties with the United States, Europe, Russia, and regional forums like the SCO simultaneously.
This strategy, however, is not without risks. While it allows India flexibility, it also exposes the country to criticism from both Washington and Moscow, each of whom may feel that New Delhi is not fully committed to their respective agendas. As Navarro’s comments show, frustration in US policy circles can sometimes spill over into public rebukes that complicate diplomatic engagement.
Looking Ahead
The SCO Summit in Tianjin has once again underscored the delicate balancing act at the heart of India’s foreign policy. By engaging with Putin and Xi, Modi signaled India’s intent to remain an active player in Eurasian forums. By continuing close defense and trade ties with the United States, New Delhi reinforces its role in the Indo-Pacific strategy. Navigating these competing expectations will remain a central challenge for Indian diplomacy.
Whether Washington chooses to lean on criticism like Navarro’s or to adopt the more pragmatic tone expressed by Bessent could shape the trajectory of US–India relations in the months ahead. For now, what is clear is that India’s pursuit of multipolar engagement is drawing increasing scrutiny, both at home and abroad.