September 19, 2025
Though I follow various things that happen, both in the national and international affairs of political importance and consequential opinions and I register in my mind, I am not an admirer of many in the political field of our country. I am not a great admirer of the prime minister or the opposition leader for their lack of principles though I have some sympathy for the former for his childhood poverty and the latter for being the son of a father who was brutally killed in public and the grandson of a lady who was brutally killed in private, both were prime ministers.
All the same, a bouquet for the prime minister for his recent decisions in disconnecting the man considered to be the most powerful in the world, showing him his place. He took a decisive stand by not caving in to the demands of the superpower leading to the imposition of additional export duties demanded and recently executed by the United States of America because of the adamant decision of the present president. Recently, in an article that I published elsewhere, I had written about some of the presidents of US who were apparently tolerable leaders this country produced in recent history and wrote “now it is led by an ordinary reprobate trying to rule the world, variegated and malevolent indeed, while being a mendacious one, who barks at everyone with his usual insolence of a nincompoop”. The bouquet for the prime minister is for recognising him as the personality I described in the previous sentence.

Our prime minister had taken him to his state before he contested the previous time, almost declared him as the possible next president and he was given all accolades and both were declared as very good friends, especially because the present president of the US then called him, afterwards also, his ‘good friend’. His good friend was let down recently by the man whom our prime minister praised during those days. I read from reports that on the seventeenth of June this year, they had a conversation in which the prime minister put his foot down by refusing to stop imports of oil from the USSR, after which the prime minister of India refused to talk to him and did not attend to more than four calls from the US president, an act which only a very firm prime minister of the largest democratic country in the world can do. Surely, he deserves a bouquet in appreciation.
Cleisthenes, the Athenian politician and law giver, considered the father of democracy, is supposed to have stated that all political leaders should reflect the will of the people while they occupy positions of power in the state. He believed that every representative of people in a democracy should reflect the will of the people and should keep the desires and goals of his people as primary in taking any decision. In our country, there are plenty of occasions when our political leaders did not listen to the wise counsel of the father of democracy. However, there are certain occasions when our political leaders rose to the occasion and took decisions in favour of the people and on behalf of the people. One such decision became necessary when the US imposed a ‘punishment’ on our country in the form of additional duties for importing to their country from India. The response of the political leadership of this country definitely represents the will of the people and hence the prime minister deserves a bouquet of flowers for a decision which may be disadvantageous for the country. All the same, it has to be remembered that he did not make this country bend its head in front of another.
The spokesperson for the ministry of external affairs in briefing press used three words with regard to the imposition of export duty of twenty-five percent as ‘punishment’ for importing Russian oil. He said the decision was ‘unfair’, ‘unjustified’ and ‘unreasonable’.
No doubt, it is ‘unfair’ because this country cannot survive unless oil is imported. Ours is a developing country of large numbers of people and it cannot function without importing oil and the cheapest available is Russian oil. Therefore, asking our country to stop importing Russian oil is as good as asking our people to die, the cost of living will go very high if India imports oil from any other country. Hence, the demand by the US president is ‘unfair’.
The prime minister of the country deserves a bouquet of flowers for his firm decision.
Undoubtedly, it is ‘unjustified’ because the US is not a country which has to squeeze out as much money as possible from poorer countries because it is a very rich country with a very high per capita income, much higher than those of Indians. It is unjustifiable because the US is allowing China and many European nations to import oil from Russia. Therefore, this duty demanded is a discriminated ‘punishment’, meted out for no justification at all.
The prime minister of the country deserves a bouquet of flowers for his courage.
Without doubt, it is ‘unreasonable’ because the US president knows that our country cannot live without importing oil and as a developing country it has to look for the cheapest oil available in the world, and hence, Russian oil is the cheapest for this country to buy. There are no reasons for the United States to punish India, much less the right to do it, because it is not a court of law to punish anybody and this unreasonableness has to be resisted.
The prime minister of the country deserves a bouquet of flowers for his reasonableness.
More than half a century ago, another president of the United States then, gave military threats to this country during the Indo-Pak conflict. The then prime minister dealt with the situation equally courageously. She told Nixon, which is on record, ‘being a developing country, we have our backbones straight and enough will and resources to fight. We shall prove that days are gone when a power can rule and open control any nation from thousands of miles away’. The Indian public endorsed her words and gave her many bouquets. Then the secretary of state of the US under the then president told the then Indian prime minister ‘don’t you feel you could have been a little more patient with US president’. The Indian prime minister smiled at him and the answer was clear. That year, an American Gallup Poll voted the Indian prime minister as the most admired person in the world. She stood her ground when Pakistan started a war with India when it bombed nine Indian air bases with which the conflict for the liberation of East Bengal and establishment of Bangladesh as a new nation began.
Daring and recklessness are very different. The present US president showed his recklessness by using the word punishment for India. Whom does he think that he is to threaten the biggest democracy in the world with such a threat? Who gave him the power to punish a free country? Has he forgotten that his country does not have the right to threaten a country which has an ancient civilisation which his country does not have? Which law in the world gave him the right to punish any country, let alone a free republic like our country? What power in the world is vested on him to punish at all? Why does he not understand his foolishness in offering such a threat to a benign country of people with free will? Hundred and forty-five crore people told him to go to hell through the silence of their prime minister.
For those who allege that the prime minister had no other choice I have an answer in defense of him. He did have a choice to duck under. He did not.
Apart from standing firm in front of a developed and powerful nation, our prime minister recently asked our people to become vocal for local, to face the new challenging circumstances from the threat of a powerful nation. One has no doubt, all Indians will stand by him in appreciation of a positive, definite and courageous stand he has taken.
Definitely, let us offer our prime minister a bouquet of flowers for his firm decision.