Commentary: Indian sailors\u2019 deaths in US strike reopen old wounds and\ndeepen new grievances<\/p>\n
After a US military strike killed three Indians on a commercial ship\nnear the Strait of Hormuz, India fears that its concerns are becoming\neasy to overlook, says think tank researcher Rahul Jaybhay.<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI: When the United States imposed its blockade of Iranian\nports, there was always the question of how far Washington would go to\nenforce it. India has the painful answer.<\/p>\n
The US Navy struck three commercial tankers in the Gulf of Oman in\nthe same week, accusing them of violating the blockade. All three\nvessels carried Indian mariners aboard, and three on board the MT\nSettebello were killed on Jun 10.<\/p>\n
India responded by summoning the US charge d\u2019affaires twice within a\nweek, while External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar conveyed India\u2019s\n\u201cstrong protest\u201d to US counterpart Marco Rubio. In a statement on Jun\n13, Mr Rubio did not take responsibility nor issue an apology, but\ninstead warned commercial shipping vessels to \u201ccomply with orders from\nUS forces\u201d.<\/p>\n
So far, the Indian government appears to have taken a pragmatic\nstance: It is not letting the attack jeopardise already tense bilateral\nties, nor has it used its levers to convey displeasure beyond the\ndiplomatic route.<\/p>\n
A view is emerging in New Delhi that India\u2019s stance does not match\nits rising geopolitical profile, and that its strategic autonomy is\nbeing compromised by the need to toe Washington\u2019s line.<\/p>\n
COLD WAR-ERA SENTIMENTS REVIVED<\/p>\n
Policymakers, media personalities and Indian strategic elites have\nexpressed concerns about India\u2019s weak response. As one retired naval\nchief wrote, Mr Jaishankar\u2019s assertion that \u201csuch lethal actions against\ncommercial shipping are not justified\u201d failed to \u201cconvey the full\nmeasure of indignation felt across the country\u201d.<\/p>\n
Social media videos of New Delhi\u2019s autorickshaw drivers tearing up\npromotional materials featuring President Donald Trump, as part of the\nUS\u2019 250th anniversary celebration, made palpable India\u2019s anger.<\/p>\n
India has long been described as an indispensable partner to the US.\nAt the recent Shangri-La Dialogue, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called\nIndia a \u201ccritical anchor\u201d in the Indo-Pacific.<\/p>\n
Yet the Settebello attack suggests that even when Indian lives are\nlost, India is expected to accept US actions without any meaningful\ncontrition.<\/p>\n
This has revived a Cold War-era suspicion that the US treats Indian\nconcerns as secondary when its priorities are at stake. The Settebello\ndeaths are seen in that context as irreparable damage that the US\ncontinues to inflict on India.<\/p>\n
BUILDING ON EXISTING GRIEVANCES<\/p>\n
This comes at a time when India-US relations are in a steep decline.\nNew rifts in trade negotiations keep developing.<\/p>\n
In August 2025, the Trump administration first imposed 25 per cent\ntariffs on Indian goods, then an additional 25 per cent tariff to punish\nNew Delhi for purchasing Russian oil.<\/p>\n
Although India and the US inked an interim trade deal in February, it\ncame with trade-offs seen to curtail India\u2019s self-professed strategic\nautonomy.<\/p>\n
New Delhi cut its oil imports from Russia and promised to purchase\nmore oil from the US and Venezuela. Its full-fledged shift away from\nRussian supplies was disrupted, as the US waived the last of its\ntemporary sanctions on Russian oil in May to ease the global energy\ncrisis created by the US-Iran war.<\/p>\n
Such policies, however, interfere with India\u2019s autonomous choices on\noil supplies \u2013 making India\u2019s choices contingent on the whims of US oil\nwaivers.<\/p>\n
The India-US trade negotiations on the deal are ongoing, though US\npressure tactics continue. As the Indian and US negotiators met in June\nto mull the interim trade framework, the Trump administration threatened\nto impose a 12.5 per cent tariff on India, along with 53 other\neconomies, due to allegations of forced labour in the supply chain.<\/p>\n
The unease goes beyond trade. Mr Trump\u2019s claim that he mediated the\nMay 2025 India-Pakistan limited conflict was one of the first signs of a\ndeveloping rupture in relations. His claim goes against India\u2019s\nlongstanding position that disputes with Pakistan should be handled\nbilaterally. Pakistan has also in recent months seen an upswing in\ndiplomatic capital, playing a role in mediating US-Iran ceasefire\ntalks.<\/p>\n
India is also worried, after Mr Trump\u2019s summit with Chinese President\nXi Jinping this May, by the changing rhetoric around the US-China\nrelationship. The US co-opting China in a so-called \u201cG2\u201d (Group of Two)\nframework could significantly lower India\u2019s weight in US strategic\ncalculus.<\/p>\n
WHAT KEEPS US-INDIA TIES AFLOAT<\/p>\n
While these pain points seem to be accumulating, the defence aspect\nof the relationship is still keeping broader US-India ties afloat.<\/p>\n
Both countries have continued to conduct annual, complex joint\nmilitary exercises, such as Yudh Abhyas in September 2025. The US\napproved the sale of 100 Javelin anti-tank missiles and precision-\nguided artillery rounds to India in November \u2013 the first purchase after\nbeing punished for buying Russian oil. They have also continued\nhigh-level routinised bureaucratic dialogues, such as the Indian\nmilitary chiefs\u2019 visits to the US, most recently in April.<\/p>\n
The risk is not a total breakdown of the US-India relationship, but\nthe growing disenchantment beyond specific issues and broader\ndivergences on the international order.<\/p>\n
Mr Trump has berated allies and partners for freeriding on US\nsecurity and withdrawn the US from international institutions, further\ndegrading the post-war global order. There is intense debate about\nwhether the US has broken international law in recent military\noperations, and in the specific case of the MT Settebello, whether it\nviolated the San Remo manual which sets out the rules of engagement for\nmaritime warfare.<\/p>\n
The recent scrapping of the \u201cIndo\u201d prefix from the US Indo-Pacific\nCommand, which is responsible for all US military operations and\nstrategy in the region, also adds to the unease.<\/p>\n
A name change may appear larg<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/commentary-indian-sailors-deaths-in-us-strike-reopen-old-wounds-and-deepen-new-grievances-1782946209", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }