There is something strangely predictable about the English-speaking liberal elite in India. Each time the West raises its voice or shows displeasure towards New Delhi, these intellectuals rush to foreign publications to deliver an “I told you so” lecture. Their pattern is always the same — blame India for the rift, excuse the West, and portray the situation as if India deserves the reprimand.

The latest to join this group of sepoy intellectuals is Mukul Kesavan, who recently wrote a column in The Guardian where he directly pinned the blame for the temporary strain in Indo-US relations on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The headline of Kesavan’s article carried an unmistakable colonial undertone. It stated: “Blindsided by Trump, Modi is learning hard lessons about India’s place in the new world order.” The message hidden behind this was clear. It was a way of telling India to stop imagining itself as an equal power, to know its “place,” and to treat the United States with the reverence it supposedly commanded half a century ago. The underlying warning was simple — either comply or be punished with tariffs.

“The Guardian recently published a condescending article, authored by one Mukul Kesavan, on how it was India’s fault to stand up against the US bullying.” The arrogance on display here was not new for Western media. But perhaps the most notable part of the entire episode was not just Trump’s highhandedness or the opportunism of Western leaders who often spare China while targeting India. It was the eagerness of India’s own “brown sepoys,” like Kesavan, to echo this arrogance and package it as insight.

Rather than stand with their country when it was resisting external bullying, they appeared delighted to side with the bully. They chose to describe Modi’s refusal to bend or to “massage the ego” of a mercurial narcissist as a diplomatic blunder. In doing so, they attempted to “gaslight readers into believing India committed a big blunder by standing up for her honor and not massaging the ego of a mercurial narcissist.” This attitude did not just echo foreign arrogance, it mocked the principle of sovereignty itself.

Trump’s tariffs: A weapon of bullying, not policy

Mukul Kesavan portrays Donald Trump’s tariff war against India as if it were an unavoidable lesson in “realpolitik” that Modi failed to grasp. But this framing misses the reality: the tariffs were not a matter of economic strategy. They were a punishment.

In April, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on India, already higher than most US allies were subjected to. When New Delhi refused to yield, he doubled it to 50%. The justification offered was India’s continued purchase, refining, and re-exporting of Russian crude oil during the Ukraine conflict.

But here lies the hypocrisy. China was by far the largest buyer of Russian oil. Yet no such tariffs were imposed on Beijing. Why? Because Washington understood that its economy could not risk a direct trade war with China, given its dependence on Chinese supply chains. India, in contrast, was considered a softer target that could be coerced through economic pressure.

This calculation, however, backfired. India refused to retreat and continued buying Russian oil, ensuring affordable energy at home and stability for its refining sector. Far from destabilising the global economy, Indian refiners became a crucial stabilising force for fuel supplies. Ironically, Europe — which had sanctioned Russian crude — ended up being one of the biggest beneficiaries, as it imported Russian oil refined in India.

If anything, India’s role helped Europe navigate its own energy crisis. Yet in Kesavan’s telling, India was guilty and Modi deserved humiliation. Such victim-blaming could only come from a sepoy mindset.

The Guardian recently published a condescending article, authored by one Mukul Kesavan, on how it was India’s fault to stand up against the US bullying

The attack on Ambani and “Brahmins”: Exploiting India’s caste fault lines

Tariffs were only one element of Washington’s pressure strategy. The other was a coordinated smear campaign aimed at India’s top business families. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent targeted Mukesh Ambani, accusing him and other wealthy Indian families of profiteering from Russian crude. The signal was clear — vilify India’s corporate elite, and create divisions inside the country.

This rhetoric was further amplified by Trump’s adviser Peter Navarro, who in a deeply offensive remark invoked caste politics. He accused “Brahmins” of profiteering “at the expense of the Indian people.” It was an extraordinary statement — a senior White House official casually dragging India’s caste divisions into global trade negotiations.

Adding to this arrogance, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed that India would “say sorry” within a few months for resisting Trump’s pressure. This attitude summed up Washington’s mindset, revealing its expectation that India would eventually submit like a subordinate state.

But “this was psy-ops, a deliberate attempt to weaponise India’s social fissures in order to pressure the Modi government into signing an unfavourable trade deal.” The hope was that internal critics would echo these attacks and corner Modi further. Unsurprisingly, Kesavan obliged. Instead of condemning the racist and casteist rhetoric from Trump’s team, he wrote in The Guardian that Modi had “overreached” and “miscalculated.” For him, the scandal was not that American officials mocked Indian caste dynamics, but that India refused to bend.

False equivalence with Pakistan: The old American playbook

Another part of Kesavan’s argument repeated an old tactic — treating India and Pakistan as equal neighbours locked in petty quarrels. After the Pahalgam terror attack, India acted swiftly and decisively. Trump and Vice President JD Vance, however, tried to spin the episode as if their phone calls had prevented a war. When India refused to endorse this narrative, Washington sulked.

Kesavan chose to describe this as Modi’s failure. But this is an old American habit. For decades, Washington has liked to bracket India with Pakistan, ignoring the reality that one is the world’s largest democracy while the other remains a state that has repeatedly sponsored terrorism.

Modi rightly rejected this false equivalence. “India will never allow its counter-terrorism policies to be dictated by an American president desperate for a Nobel Prize.” Yet in Kesavan’s telling, India’s refusal to play along was a diplomatic blunder. His greater concern seemed to be that Modi did not quietly accept the humiliation.

Strategic autonomy: India is not for sale

The main claim of Kesavan’s column was that India under Modi had leaned too closely towards Washington, wrongly assuming it had secured a permanent seat at the “white man’s table.” But this claim is misleading and historically inaccurate.

India’s foreign policy under Modi has been defined by consistency: build ties with the United States, yes, but never at the expense of sovereignty. This is why New Delhi continues to buy Russian oil, deepen defence cooperation with France, participate in the Quad with Japan and Australia, and remain engaged in SCO summits alongside Russia and China.

This is nothing but “strategic autonomy” — the principle of non-alignment updated for the 21st century. Even Kesavan admitted as much when he wrote: “Non-alignment flies today under the flag of strategic autonomy.” Yet, he still twisted this into criticism, as if Modi should apologise for pursuing what every serious Indian statesman from Nehru to Vajpayee sought: an India free to choose its partners without external diktats.

Even Trump, in a rare candid remark, admitted that “the US had lost India and Russia to China.” What he did not say was that his own bullying — the tariffs, the casteist jibes, the attacks on Indian businesses — pushed India to diversify and strengthen its global partnerships.

Kesavan’s frustration lies not in Modi “losing” America. It lies in Modi refusing to trade away India’s dignity just to appease America.

India’s silence versus sepoy cowardice

Through the period of tariffs, the attacks on Ambani, the caste jibes, and the veiled threats from Washington, India has chosen to maintain a dignified silence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not respond with angry words or public spats. Instead, when Donald Trump extended an olive branch and described him as a “great friend,” Modi politely reciprocated. This was a demonstration of statesmanship: the ability to stay above the noise, to avoid being dragged into mudslinging, and to keep long-term strategic priorities ahead of short-term arguments.

It is possible that Kesavan interprets this gesture as weakness. But what he calls weakness is, in fact, maturity. A confident India does not have to join in “X rants.” Instead, it chooses to play the long game. Unfortunately, “brown sepoys like Kesavan, blinded by ideological prejudice and crippled by intellectual shallowness, simply lack the depth to grasp this nuance.”

His article makes this immaturity clear. He rushes to The Guardian, a newspaper often described as a “favourite platform of colonial nostalgia masquerading as progressive thought,” and lectures India about “knowing its place.” It is less about policy and more about repeating the colonial tone of the past.

“This is the essence of the brown sepoy: silence when the West insults India, but loud indignation when India refuses to bow.” The double standard is clear. They remain quiet when India is mocked from abroad, but they raise their voices when India asserts its dignity.

History repeated: Nehru’s submission versus Modi’s resolve

To truly understand today’s contrast, one must look back at history. In 1962, when China attacked India, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru pleaded with the Americans for military support. Washington’s answer was humiliating. They offered conditional assistance, used the moment to lecture India about its “socialist policies,” and even hinted at mediating Kashmir as part of the deal. Nehru had no choice but to accept the insult.

In 1971, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, Indira Gandhi faced a similar situation. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger mocked her with insulting names, sent the Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal, and tried to push India into submission. But unlike Nehru, Indira Gandhi did not bow down. She stood her ground, and India not only resisted the pressure but also liberated Bangladesh, redrawing the map of South Asia【web†source】.

Now in 2025, Narendra Modi faces bullying of a different kind. Instead of warships and armies, it comes through tariffs, oil pressure, and trade threats. And like Indira, he has refused to blink. His government has kept India’s national interests as the first priority — whether it is continuing to buy Russian oil or rejecting unfair trade terms.

Yet, the irony is striking. The same liberal elite who once tolerated Nehru’s humiliations now criticise Modi’s defiance. “That is the inversion of India’s liberal elite: surrender is ‘sophistication,’ but sovereignty is ‘hubris.’”

The actual hard lesson for America

The Guardian headline mocked Modi by saying he was “learning hard lessons about India’s place in the world.” But the reality is the opposite. The real hard lesson is being learned in Washington. India is no longer a country that can be pushed around.

Trump is now discovering that trying to equate India with Pakistan was a major mistake. Modi is not someone like Asim Munir who can be influenced by a “sumptuous meal at the White House.” India has drawn a line.

“India will not be told who it can trade with. India will not apologise for buying affordable oil. India will not accept being bracketed with Pakistan. India will not sign a bad trade deal just because the American President wants us to.”

If this reality frustrates Trump, then so be it. If it makes Mukul Kesavan “choke on his colonial hangover,” it only highlights how outdated that mindset has become. Because this is India in 2025 — proud, assertive, and deeply confident in its civilisational identity. It knows that the so-called “rules-based order” of the West was always another way of describing Western dominance. And it knows that the multipolar world is no longer a distant dream but a living reality.

A lesson for sepoys and the West: India refuses to crawl

At the end of the day, the difference is clear. Kesavan and others like him interpret India’s refusal to bow as a failure rather than an achievement. For them, the measure of success is how well India conforms to Western approval, not how well it defends its people’s interests.

Prime Minister Modi, whatever his critics may claim, measures success differently. For him, India’s dignity is non-negotiable. And this is exactly why “the sepoy class despises him: because he exposes their irrelevance in a world where India no longer needs their colonial hand-holding.”

So the truth must be stated plainly: “Modi is not ‘blindsided.’ India is not ‘learning its place.’ It is Trump and his sepoys who are learning theirs that in this new world order, India will not crawl when asked to bend.” This is not the India of old. This is the India of today — a civilisational power that can defend its sovereignty, protect its interests, and remain unshaken even when Washington or its sepoy supporters feel unsettled.