‘Permission for India?’ US Treasury Secy’s Remark Sparks Row
During an interview, Scott Bessent said, “The Indians have been very good actors. We asked them to stop buying Russian oil, and they did. Now we have given them ‘permission’ to buy Russian oil.” (Image by Devon Chandler via Pixabay {Public domain})
- Opposition says US treasury secretary’s comment has reduced India to a subordinate ally; Modi government remains silent
A remark by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggesting that Washington had given India “permission” to buy Russian oil has sparked a sharp political backlash in India, with the opposition accusing the government of allowing the country’s sovereignty to appear compromised.
The controversy erupted after Bessent made the comment during a television interview on Friday while discussing sanctions and energy trade following tensions related to the conflict involving Iran. During the interview, Bessent said, “The Indians have been very good actors. We asked them to stop buying Russian oil, and they did. Now we have given them ‘permission’ to buy Russian oil.”
The phrasing immediately triggered criticism from India’s main opposition party, the Indian National Congress, which said the suggestion that India required approval from Washington to conduct its energy trade was deeply offensive.
Reacting strongly to the remark, the party posted a statement questioning the implication behind the word “permission.” “Permission? For India?” the party asked in a social media statement. It argued that a country with a population of more than 1.4 billion people should not be portrayed as waiting for approval from another nation before making decisions about its economic and strategic interests.
The Congress statement also invoked India’s history of independence and its longstanding emphasis on sovereignty in foreign policy. “India fought for freedom so that no foreign power could dictate terms to us,” the party said. “Yet today, the United States is openly talking about giving India ‘permission’.”
The party went further, describing the remark as humiliating for the country and demanding a response from the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “This is not diplomacy. This is humiliation,” the statement said, urging the government to explain why such language was being used by a senior American official.
So far, the government has not publicly responded to Bessent’s statement.
Diplomatic observers say the controversy may stem less from the technical context of the remark and more from its tone. In policy terms, Bessent was referring to a temporary sanctions waiver that allowed Indian refiners to receive Russian oil cargoes that had already been shipped before restrictions tightened.
However, by describing the situation as Washington granting India “permission,” critics say the statement created the impression that New Delhi’s decisions were subject to approval from the United States.
That perception touches a particularly sensitive nerve in India’s foreign policy tradition. Since independence in 1947, successive Indian governments — regardless of which party was in power — have emphasised the principle of strategic autonomy. Indian leaders have historically sought to avoid the appearance of aligning too closely with any major power bloc, instead projecting the country as an independent actor in global affairs.
Because of this history, language suggesting that India operates under the direction of another country often generates strong reactions in the domestic political arena.
The opposition has seized on the controversy as further evidence, it says, that the current government may be drifting too close to Washington’s strategic orbit. The Modi administration has repeatedly highlighted the growing partnership between India and the United States, pointing to expanding trade ties, deeper defence cooperation and broader strategic alignment in the Indo-Pacific.
Critics, however, argue that such closeness can sometimes produce uncomfortable optics.
For the Congress, the issue is less about energy policy and more about national dignity and perception. In its statement, the party stressed that India must always be seen as making independent choices on the global stage. “Indians are not actors in someone else’s script,” the party said.
The political controversy comes at a time when India’s oil import patterns are already shifting for largely commercial reasons. Data from tanker-tracking firms such as Kpler and Vortexa suggest that India’s purchases of Russian crude have been declining in recent months.
According to provisional estimates, Russia’s share of India’s crude imports fell from roughly 34 per cent in November 2025 to about 19 per cent by February 2026. At the same time, imports of American crude have increased significantly.
Oil from the United States accounted for around 6 per cent of India’s import basket in September 2025, but that figure had climbed to nearly 20 per cent by February 2026.
Energy analysts say these shifts are largely driven by market factors rather than political pressure. Price differentials, shipping costs, refinery configurations and supply availability all influence where Indian refiners purchase their crude.
Nevertheless, the political debate triggered by Bessent’s comment highlights how sensitive issues of sovereignty remain in India’s public discourse. Even when policy decisions are shaped primarily by economic considerations, the language used by foreign officials can carry symbolic weight.
As the opposition continues to press for clarification, attention now turns to whether the Modi government will formally respond to the remark or allow the controversy to fade. For many observers, the episode underscores the delicate balance India seeks to maintain — strengthening partnerships with major powers while preserving the image of strategic independence that has long defined its foreign policy.
