On 1st July, Telegraph published an opinion piece authored by Tom Sharpe where he boldly declared India “an enemy, not a friend or a neutral”. The author accused India of being “friendly” with Russia through energy trade and military ties, something Western countries, including the UK, do not approve of. The article went further and attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally for allegedly fuelling Putin’s war by prioritising discounted Russian oil over Western alignment. It painted India’s defence procurement from Russia as a strategic threat and criticised India’s neutrality as “duplicitous”.
What the author conveniently ignored is that India has repeatedly and clearly asserted that it will make decisions rooted in its national interest, not someone else’s. Minister of External Affairs, Dr S Jaishankar, has said it bluntly, “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that its problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” India is not fence-sitting. It is strategic autonomy, the right of a sovereign nation to choose its partners, trade policies and priorities, specifically when 1.4 billion people depend on affordable energy and a secure military supply chain.
If we go beyond the criticism of India, the core question arises: who really funds Russia? And what moral authority does Britain hold, when London itself has acted as a laundromat for Russian riches’ money, even while sheltering wanted economic offenders from India?
Britain fumes over INS Tamal but forgets history
The Telegraph’s outrage was triggered, in part, by the commissioning of INS Tamal, a stealth frigate built in Russia’s Yantar shipyard. The author questioned India’s continued military ties with Russia, as if a warship being built abroad were a betrayal rather than a strategic decision. Interestingly, this criticism conveniently erased the long and trusted history of India-Russia defence cooperation.
India and Russia have had defence ties for decades. When Western nations, including the UK and the US, refused India access to high-end military systems, it was the Soviet Union, and later Russia, that stepped up with affordable, reliable, and interference-free defence partnerships. INS Tamal is not an anomaly, but part of a larger relationship built on strategic necessity and trust between the two nations, and it cannot change merely due to the temperaments shown by Western powers.
Dismissing that legacy simply because the West is uncomfortable with Russia reveals more about the UK’s selective memory than it does about India’s defence logic. India’s gradual diversification in arms imports is on its own terms. One warship does not define allegiance, but Britain’s reaction certainly exposes its outdated expectations.
London’s long love affair with Russian wealth
Before pointing fingers, Britain should look into the mirror and examine itself. London has, for decades, been the centrepiece for disguising illegally earned Russian riches. Loose financial oversight, real estate loopholes, and welcoming “golden visa” policies have allowed Russian riches, especially close to the political circle, to park billions in UK property and businesses.
According to a 2020 UK Parliament report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, London became a “laundromat” for dirty Russian money. Transparency International has linked over £1.5 billion of UK property to Russians accused of corruption or Kremlin links, most of it in London. The UK’s National Crime Agency has reportedly acknowledged that half of the Russian laundromat transactions had ties to the UK.
After all that mess that has happened inside the UK, Telegraph has the audacity to call India “an enemy” for securing oil at a discount to fuel its economy. The irony hits at the right place, as the UK enriched Russian riches for years, while Indian consumers today are merely trying to fill their fuel tanks at an affordable price.
The EU’s energy hypocrisy – lecture India while buying the same oil
India is being vilified for importing Russian crude oil. However, it would be better if the West’s record were looked at first. Even after the Russia-Ukraine war began, Europe ramped up imports of Russian crude. In March 2022, Dr S Jaishankar rightly pointed out that Europe’s oil imports from Russia rose 15% month-on-month. Data spoke for itself in favour of India importing crude from Russia.
In the first nine months of the war, the EU reportedly imported six times more Russian energy than India. Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands were among the top buyers. Even now, while there is an official ban in place, European nations continue to import Russian-origin refined fuels via third countries. Guess who was the biggest of those refining intermediaries? India.
India buys discounted Russian crude, refines it, and exports it, including to Europe. In fact, in 2024, India overtook Saudi Arabia as Europe’s top supplier of refined fuel. Interestingly, much of it was made from Russian crude. How did this happen? EU sanctions only prohibit direct crude imports. If the oil is refined outside Russia, it is magically “clean” in Europe’s eyes as if the almighty has touched it and made it pure.
In simple terms, European cars are still running on Russian oil. The only difference is that now the fuel is routed via refineries in Gujarat, India. When the Telegraph calls India’s actions “duplicitous”, it fails to mention a crucial fact: that India is the West’s own energy laundering station. This quiet complicity has been overlooked by the “masters” sitting in Europe signing sanctions against Russian oil because it suits European energy needs.
India’s military procurement – a matter of strategic continuity
The Telegraph mocked India’s reliance on Russian weapons while ignoring the performance of systems like the BrahMos or S-400 during the recent Operation Sindoor against Pakistan. It conveniently ignored that India began these defence ties decades ago when the West refused to sell critical systems to India. Soviet, and later Russian, systems were reliable, affordable, and non-intrusive. These were the key factors that pushed for the defence posture that India now flaunts.
India cannot, and should not, replace 60% of its defence arsenal overnight, especially under global pressure. India is diversifying, but it is being done on India’s terms and not on any other country’s or leader’s. India buys defence products from the US, France, and Israel, while investing in indigenous capabilities like the Tejas fighter, drone systems, air defence, and DRDO missile systems.
Not to forget, India has a hostile neighbourhood. There is China on one side and Pakistan on the other. India cannot gamble on virtue signalling. It needs dependable supply lines, and Russia continues to honour its contracts.
Furthermore, Western arms deals are often piggybacked with political strings, intrusive inspections, or vetoes, none of which India is in a position to tolerate. Let’s not forget how the US sided with Pakistan during the Kargil War and how it paralysed Iran’s nuclear programme, which was started with the help of the US decades ago. India cannot afford such issues again in the future. Its continued partnership with Russia is not an endorsement of the Russia-Ukraine war, as India has repeatedly favoured dialogue. India’s relationship with Russia is more of a strategic insurance policy.
India’s energy needs are not immoral
Western pundits often confuse Indian pragmatism for immorality. However, Dr S Jaishankar has put it simply, “If Europe can look after itself, so can we.” He reminded global forums that India is a $2,000 per capita economy compared to Europe’s $60,000. Expecting India to give up discounted oil while Europe stockpiles LNG is not fairness, it is hypocrisy.
India buys Russian oil not to support war, but because its people need energy security. As Dr S Jaishankar said at the GLOBSEC Forum, “We don’t send people into recession to score geopolitical points.” India also continues to call for peace and diplomacy, while the West floods Ukraine with weapons and prolongs the conflict. Who is truly neutral is up to the people to decide.
UK’s hypocrisy on fugitives – London’s safe haven status
If Britain wants to play moral-moral, it must explain why it shelters India’s most wanted fugitives. Vijay Mallya, who is accused of bank fraud worth Rs 9,000 crores, fled to London in 2016. Even after India won extradition orders, he remains in the UK due to endless appeals.
Another fine example is Nirav Modi, who is accused in the Rs 14,000 crore PNB scam. He has been in UK prison since 2019, fighting extradition despite India’s airtight case. Furthermore, arms dealer and middleman accused of shady deals, Sanjay Bhandari, is also living comfortably in Britain.
In each case, UK courts cite “human rights concerns” and “prison conditions” to stall extradition. In contrast, the UK deports illegal migrants swiftly, including entire families from Rwanda and Albania. So what kind of message does the UK want to send here? That if you are rich and Indian, Britain will protect you, and if you are poor and desperate, you will be deported? How convenient.
It is evident that the UK risks being seen as a “haven for economic offenders”, and yet it does not act. One must ask, how can a country sheltering fraudsters moralise about “right and wrong” in global policy?
Whataboutism or necessary reality check?
India often gets accused of whataboutism when these hypocrisies are raised. However, this is not a deflection but a demand for fair standards. If the West believes buying Russian oil funds war, what about buying gas? What about the London Stock Exchange listing of firms linked to Russia? What about the UK’s billion-pound arms sale to Saudi Arabia during the Yemen War?
For those who are unaware, since 2015, the UK has exported arms worth over £20 billion to Saudi Arabia despite the fact that Saudi jets bombed civilian targets. Did Telegraph outrage? No. Because its outrage is only to school India and not for its masters running the UK.
All countries pursue strategic interest. The West has done it for centuries. India doing the same is not betrayal. It is called being mature, as India understands its people’s needs and puts them above any diplomatic ties.
The problem – the West expected obedience, not independence
What bothers many commentators in the West is that India no longer falls in line. It does not parrot the Western script. It does not vote the “right way” in UN forums. It buys oil where it gets the best deal, speaks bluntly at press conferences, and reminds everyone that its foreign policy is here to stay.
India is done with playing sides. It is playing India. And in a world of shifting alliances, transactional diplomacy, and economic nationalism, that is the only consistent position India must hold on to. Calling India’s desire to keep its own interest above everything else “enemy behaviour” is absurd. It shows that the UK still has the colonial hangover where India is expected to behave like a loyal subject, not a confident equal.
Conclusion
The UK may disagree with India’s Russia stance. However, it has no moral high ground to judge. Before questioning India, it must answer why for decades it let Russian riches launder money in London, why it still has an ongoing Russian-linked financial ecosystem, why it refuses to extradite Indian economic fugitives, and why it is still using refined fuel that originated from Russia via Indian intermediaries.
Neither the UK nor India is perfect or above criticism. However, to brand India an “enemy” for pursuing an energy deal while you host its fraudsters, fund your city with Russian cash, and quietly keep the oil flowing through loopholes is the height of hypocrisy only the West can achieve.
The world order is evolving, rather it is changing. Partnerships will be built on respect, not pressure. India will remain firm in defending its choices, its sovereignty, and its people. It is high time the West, especially Britain, realised a post-colonial India no longer needs lectures. It demands equal footing.
