Who ‘surrendered’ to the US? It’s the wrong question

(The article was originally published in Indian Express as a part of Dr Ram Madhav’s column titled Ram Rajya on May 02, 2026. Views expressed are personal.) 

Last week, a major debate erupted over an observation of mine at a conference in Washington DC. I talked about oil imports from Iran and Russia. I was wrong on facts about Russia because India never stopped importing oil from that country. I promptly apologised for the mistake. Yet, the opposition Congress Party used my observation to loudly reiterate its allegation that the Indian government had “surrendered” before the US. This is like pot calling the kettle black.

Because, the compression of oil imports from Iran, that I talked about, had indeed happened during UPA-2 regime under prime minister Manmohan Singh. Until 2010, Iran was India’s second largest oil supplier with almost 15 percent of total imports coming from that country. But in 2012, the Obama administration in US came out with NDAA Act and threatened India and a few other countries with sanctions if they didn’t stop buying oil from Iran. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a special visit to India to force Singh government to fall in line. Singh not only succumbed to the US pressure by reducing oil imports from Iran to less than 5 percent but also dismantled RBI’s Asian Clearing Union mechanism making it impossible to pay to Iran in dollars or euros. Under the same US pressure, Singh government suspended oil shipments from countries like Libya and Sudan too. Unlike the churlish leadership of the Congress Party today, the BJP leadership of those times was mature and magnanimous. It did not call Manmohan Singh as “Surrender Singh”. It understood the geopolitical complexities of the times and reacted in a restrained manner.

But this time, reaction to my observation came not only from the opposition but also from a section of the supporters of the ruling party who genuinely felt that I endorsed “surrender” allegation. Therein lied an important message for India-US relations, which, incidentally, was the main thrust of my speech at the DC conference. Unfortunately, that content was never publicised. I cautioned the US counterparts about the negative public perception in India over the US today. I underscored how the three important pillars of the relationship – geo-strategic, geo-economic and people-to-people – are all on a shaky ground.

Prime minister Vajpayee, in his Atlantic Council address in New York in 2000, described the India-US relationship as “natural allies”. It was based on a common geostrategic understanding about the global challenges like China and Islamic terror etc. Today, nobody understands US’ geostrategic priorities clearly. The international liberal order that was built over last seven decades is crumbling and it is not clear where the US stands on that issue. Not just India, even the NATO partners and other European allies do not know its priorities in Ukraine or in Gaza or elsewhere. Secondly, a strong economic cooperation has been built over last two decades between US and India. Bilateral trade touched $ 220 billion doubling in last ten years and making US the largest trade partner of India. IT and defence sectors became key drivers of this partnership. But last one year saw that partnership coming under strain due to excessive tariffs imposed by the US unilaterally. New H1B visa regime put enormous pressure on companies that deploy Indian employees in US markets. Even the people-to-people relationship, a key pillar, is undergoing considerable stress due to migration related debates in the US. Online and personal intimidations are growing causing concern to the Indian diaspora.

Given these challenges, I suggested three mutuals for improving relations between the two countries – mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interest. Ironically, these were the three points made by India to the Chinese counterparts a couple of years ago. It is a sad commentary that the same points have to be used in the context of US-India relations too. Mutual respect is a key missing element in the relationship at present. Comments like “hellhole”, “gangsters with laptops”, coming from highest authorities, vitiate the atmosphere creating animus in India. Mutual sensitivity too is important. When India talked about strategic autonomy, it was ridiculed or reviled. But the US wants to engage with any country for its own interest without bothering about the sensitivities of others. Finally, we need to redefine what is in our mutual interest as two long-time friends and partners.

None of what I said tantamount to surrender. On the contrary, it was a clear assertion that a reset is needed in the relationship. India and the US are two big and important powers in the world. If the US is the leading Western power, India is a leading power in the Global South. Both share certain common principles like liberalism, democracy and a commitment to a stable global order. It is in the long-term interest of a peaceful world that the two countries have huge stakes in the relationship.

There is a visible dearth of a good India hand in the US administration today. But fortunately, that gap can be filled up by the dynamic diplomat, Sergio Gor, who took charge as US ambassador to India six months ago. Gor is committed to addressing the challenges in the relationship. Probably after John Kenneth Galbraith in early 1960s who had close relationship with President Kennedy and Robert Blackwill in early 2000s who again was very close to President Bush, it is Ambassador Gor who has great proximity to the White House. That helps, and we have already seen that proximity at work on a couple of occasions in the recent past. In just a few months’ time, Gor has already made his presence felt by actively engaging with different stakeholders including officials and non-officials alike. His affable demeanour is endearing him to Indian public opinion.

India has defining relations with several major powers in the world. The relationship with the US stands out as the most significant among them. In the current climate of uncertainty, India maintained a principled and well thought out “strategic restraint”. The opposition should appreciate that and come out of its “surrender” politics.