Energy Sovereignty or Strategic Surrender?

 The emerging clarity around India’s crude oil decisions raises uncomfortable questions. For years, the Modi government projected defiance in the face of Western pressure, continuing discounted Russian oil purchases despite global criticism. That posture was sold domestically as strategic autonomy — India first, alliances later.

Now, reports indicate instructions to refiners to scale down Russian crude and increase purchases from the United States and Venezuela — a shift that aligns neatly with President Trump’s long-stated demands. If this is purely a commercial recalibration, the government must say so clearly. If it is part of a broader trade bargain, the country deserves transparency. Silence invites suspicion.

What changed? Earlier, New Delhi withstood pressure. Today, it appears to have adjusted course without explanation. Energy security is not a minor procurement issue; it is a cornerstone of foreign policy and economic stability. When a long-standing supplier is quietly sidelined, citizens are entitled to know the rationale.

Rahul Gandhi’s charge that the government has compromised national interest may be politically sharp, but it cannot be dismissed merely with personal attacks. Instead of addressing the substance of the concern, ruling party spokespersons have chosen diversion — pointing to past Congress decisions as justification. Two alleged wrongs do not create a right. Historical blame does not answer present accountability.

The Prime Minister’s silence deepens the optics problem. In Parliament and outside, what the public sees is evasion rather than engagement. Strategic shifts may sometimes be necessary. But credibility rests on explanation.

If this move strengthens India’s negotiating leverage and long-term energy security, the government should defend it openly. If not, the perception of surrender will harden. In geopolitics, perception is power — and power once doubted is difficult to reclaim.