The Congress party on Monday launched a sharp attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi following remarks by US President Donald Trump that appeared to link India’s trade relations with the United States to New Delhi’s purchases of Russian oil. The Opposition accused Washington of exerting undue pressure on India and questioned the Modi government’s handling of relations with a US administration that, it said, oscillates between public warmth and policy hostility.

At the centre of the controversy is Trump’s statement suggesting that India adjusted its behaviour to keep him “happy,” coupled with a renewed threat to raise tariffs on Indian exports if New Delhi does not align with Washington’s position on Russian energy. The remarks have triggered strong political reactions in India, with the Congress arguing that the Prime Minister’s much-publicised personal diplomacy with Trump has failed to deliver tangible benefits or protect India’s economic and strategic interests.

Jairam Ramesh, Congress general secretary in charge of communications, said the US continues to follow a “blow hot, blow cold” approach towards India, despite repeated displays of camaraderie between Modi and Trump. Referring to high-profile events such as “Namaste Trump” in Ahmedabad and “Howdy Modi” in Houston, Ramesh argued that symbolic gestures and personal rapport have not translated into policy stability or respect for India’s sovereign choices.

“The PM’s good friend in the White House continues his ‘blow hot, blow cold’ approach to India,” Ramesh wrote in a post on X. “He has yet again threatened higher tariffs on US imports from India if India did not stop buying oil from Russia. All those Namaste Trump, Howdy Modi events, all those (forced) hugs, and all those social media posts hailing the US President have done very little good.”

Trump’s comments were made earlier in the day while speaking about trade and foreign policy. “India wanted to make me happy,” he said, adding, “Modi is a very good guy and he knew I was not happy. And it was important to make me happy. We can raise tariffs on them very quickly.” The President was apparently referring to India’s continued import of Russian crude oil, a practice that Washington has opposed since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war.

According to Reuters, Trump reiterated that the US could raise tariffs on India if it does not “help on the Russian oil issue.” His remarks revived memories of August 2025, when the US administration doubled tariffs on certain Indian goods to 50%, citing India’s energy trade with Russia as a key reason. At the time, the move was widely seen as a pressure tactic aimed at forcing New Delhi to reduce its dependence on discounted Russian crude.

The Congress seized on Trump’s latest comments to argue that India is being publicly humiliated despite the Prime Minister’s efforts to cultivate a close personal relationship with the US President. Ramesh suggested that Trump’s tone implied a hierarchical relationship rather than one of equal partners, undermining India’s standing on the global stage.

Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Pramod Tiwari echoed this sentiment, asserting that India has always sourced fuel based on economic considerations and has the sovereign right to buy oil at the lowest possible cost. He accused the US of exploiting what he described as Prime Minister Modi’s political and diplomatic vulnerabilities.

“India has always procured fuel based on cost considerations,” Tiwari said. “It is our sovereign right to buy cheaper oil from Russia. The US is exploiting Prime Minister Modi’s weakness.”

Another Congress leader went further, accusing Trump of openly mocking India and alleging that the Prime Minister has failed to respond forcefully. In a strongly worded post on X, she claimed that Trump was “sniggering, humiliating and making fun of India,” while a US senator standing beside him allegedly suggested that the Indian ambassador was “begging” to keep the President in good humour.

“Trump asserts Modi has reduced Russian oil imports under US pressure to make him happy,” she wrote. “Such brazen bullies are mocking my country — but not a word from the Prime Minister. Not a squeak. Modi is a disaster — a weak, coward man who can’t stand up to bullies for defending India’s honour.”

As of 3:45 pm IST on January 5, the Indian government had not issued an official response to Trump’s remarks. The silence from New Delhi has added to the Opposition’s criticism, with Congress leaders questioning why the Prime Minister has not publicly defended India’s policy autonomy or addressed what they see as an affront to national dignity.

The issue of Russian oil has been a persistent point of friction between India and the United States since Western countries imposed sweeping sanctions on Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine. India has significantly increased its imports of discounted Russian crude, arguing that it must prioritise energy security and affordability for its citizens. The government has repeatedly stated that its purchases comply with international law and that India is not bound by unilateral sanctions imposed by other countries.

Washington, however, has expressed discomfort with this stance, arguing that large-scale purchases of Russian energy undermine efforts to economically isolate Moscow. Trump’s renewed threat of higher tariffs suggests that the issue remains a key lever in US trade policy towards India.

The controversy also unfolds against a backdrop of heightened global focus on oil-linked geopolitics. Recent US military action against Venezuela has once again drawn attention to the strategic importance of energy resources in shaping foreign policy. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, estimated at over 300 billion barrels, accounting for roughly 17% of global reserves, according to data from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Despite this vast potential, Venezuelan oil production has fallen to around one million barrels per day due to prolonged US sanctions and years of underinvestment.

For critics of the US approach, the contrast is telling. They argue that Washington selectively uses sanctions, tariffs and military pressure to advance its interests, while expecting other countries to fall in line regardless of their domestic needs. In this context, Congress leaders say, India’s continued purchase of Russian oil is a rational economic decision rather than a political provocation.

The Opposition’s broader critique is that the Modi government has placed excessive emphasis on personal diplomacy and optics, while failing to secure durable gains in trade, market access or strategic autonomy. They point to ongoing trade disputes, tariff threats and the lack of a comprehensive US–India trade agreement as evidence that warmth at the top has not translated into stability at the policy level.

Supporters of the government, on the other hand, have previously argued that India’s relationship with the US is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a single issue. They maintain that India has successfully navigated a complex global environment by keeping channels open with multiple powers, including the US, Russia and others, while safeguarding its national interests.

For now, however, Trump’s “make me happy” remark has provided fresh ammunition to the Opposition, reigniting debates about India’s foreign policy posture, the limits of personal diplomacy, and the balance between strategic partnerships and sovereign decision-making. Whether the government chooses to respond publicly or let the issue pass may shape the political and diplomatic narrative in the days to come.