By The Straits Times | Created at 2026-06-18 21:26:40 | Updated at 2026-06-19 09:06:22
12 hours ago
NEW DELHI – In April, the US launched an eye-catching initiative in India to mark 250 years of American independence ahead of July 4. Auto-rickshaws rolling through New Delhi were decorated with banners featuring the US flag and other images, including photos of President Donald Trump.
But just two months later, some of these banners were ripped apart by angry Indians – video footage of the act has gone viral – in a rare public outburst against the US, one of India’s closest strategic partners with which millions of Indians share deep people-to-people and economic ties.
The public volte-face comes after US forces attacked a tanker off the coast of Oman on June 9 that was allegedly trying to run the US’ ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, killing three Indian sailors.
The attack unleashed grief and outrage across India, with anger mounting further because of the US’ failure to either express regret or apologise for these deaths.
The deaths of the Indian sailors have added further bitterness to a once robust relationship that has soured considerably in recent months owing to tariff-related tensions, a growing proximity between the US and India’s arch-rival Pakistan, tighter US immigration policies and restrictions on New Delhi’s efforts to buy cheap Russian oil.
“I think the killings have definitely created a very major irritant in the relationship,” said Anil Trigunayat, a retired Indian ambassador and a distinguished fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation, a New Delhi-based think-tank.
“This does not augur well for the kind of confidence you would like to have in a global comprehensive strategic partnership (that India and the US claim to have),” he told The Straits Times.
The strategic relationship between India and the US was dealt another blow on June 17 when the US Indo-Pacific Command switched its name back to the US Pacific Command, reversing an eight-year-old decision and undermining India’s salience in the US’ security strategy.
While the Indian government has yet to comment on the move, commentators have described it as “one more nail in the coffin of the Quad” and see it as a concession aimed at building a new era of “constructive strategic stability” with China.
Nearly one in five seafarers worldwide is Indian, which has put them at a high risk of being caught in the crossfire between Iran and the US.
At least two other vessels with Indian sailors were also attacked by the US in the Persian Gulf region. The Indian government has condemned these attacks, summoning a senior US diplomat twice since June 10 to emphasise that the targeting of commercial shipping must end.
India, which has negotiated with Iran to secure safe transit for Indian-flagged and India-bound vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, has also called for “free and unimpeded navigation and commerce” to be restored at the earliest through the international waterways, in keeping with international law.
According to a report from the Associated Press, which quoted an anonymous US official, the engine room of the Palau-flagged Settebello – the tanker carrying the three Indian sailors – was targeted with “precision munitions” after its crew dismissed nearly 60 verbal warnings and other shows of force.
But this account of events has been questioned by others, including Manoj Yadav, general secretary of the Forward Seamen’s Union of India, who told The Independent newspaper that it was unlikely that the crew would ignore warnings from military forces.
He said the decision to strike the engine room – located directly beneath the crew accommodation area – also created an unnecessarily high risk of casualties, suggesting that the intention of the attack was not just to stop the tanker but “hit the vessel and hit it hard”.
Amid mounting public anger, including over the Indian government’s perceived lack of a strong response to the US attacks, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar spoke directly to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on June 12, registering India’s “strong protest”.
“Such lethal actions against commercial shipping are not justified,” Jaishankar said in his statement.
However, Rubio’s response to Jaishankar’s remarks further enraged many in India. A readout from the US Department of State included no conciliatory remarks and instead quoted him as saying that all commercial vessels should comply with US orders and that “violations of the US blockade and the illicit transport of Iranian oil will not be tolerated”.
“Deeply shocking to read this official US statement, which contains absolutely no expression of regret or condolence for the loss of innocent Indian lives. How can a ‘friend’ and strategic partner be so deeply insensitive?” Congress leader Shashi Tharoor posted on social media platform X on June 13.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi brought up the issue with Trump at the Group of Seven meet in France, telling the US President that the safety of Indian seafarers working in the Strait of Hormuz region was of “utmost importance” to New Delhi. Modi added that he was “confident that the issue of seafarers will receive the highest priority” during the implementation of the US’ peace agreement with Iran.
Modi had come under attack for not commenting publicly earlier on the sailors’ deaths, even as others criticised India’s official response to the killings.
Brahma Chellaney, a strategic affairs commentator, said India had responded “fecklessly” to the killings, noting how the government had demanded neither a US apology nor compensation for the victims’ families.
He said in a post on X on June 15 that “nations earn respect not merely through economic or military power, but through leadership, resolve and a willingness to defend their interests”.
The Forward Seamen’s Union of India has demanded that the US pay at least US$5 million (S$6.4 million) to the families of the dead seafarers, who comprise not just the three killed in the US attack but also a fourth Indian sailor who died on board another vessel in the Persian Gulf region because the US blockade delayed his medical aid.
Referring to Rubio’s remarks, Congress representative and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi said the US has “continued issuing orders” instead of apologising or expressing regret.
“A free country would never tolerate such language. But our Compromised PM? Silent. They listen like an obedient servant and comply with the orders,” he said in a post on X on June 14.
Kanti Bajpai, emeritus professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, told ST that the two sides should be able to contain the fallout for now as casualties have been low. The US-Iran agreement, signed on June 17, could also offer a way out if peace holds in the region.
But any further attacks and deaths of Indian sailors could complicate matters, he said. “Anti-American feeling has grown over the past year since Trump’s mediation boasts in the India-Pakistan crisis of 2025 – it is never far from the surface and could well boil up in the face of another incident at sea,” Bajpai added.
“The venting of public outrage at home if there are more strikes could (therefore) become awkward to handle at a time when the Modi government has had to deal with public examination scandals, economic challenges and energy shortages.”
Despite all the tension and the atmosphere of distrust that have emerged in the Indo-US relationship, experts say that the broader strategic logic that underpins India-US ties will override this turbulent phase, one that Trigunayat described as “an aberration of sorts” under the current Trump presidency.
“What’s different now (though) is that the politics around the relationship has become difficult,” said Karthik Nachiappan, a research fellow at NUS’ Institute of South Asian Studies.
“These incidents (the killing of the sailors and other recent sources of tension) reinforce a narrative in Delhi that the US does not care much about India now for various reasons. But both governments, I think, have made considerable investments in the relationship that should sustain the broader trust built over two decades,” he told ST.
“It will take more to derail ties, and the various structural drivers of the relationship remain, including China, defence and technology cooperation, and the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.”
Nachiappan, however, noted that there has been a gradual erosion of trust as the relationship becomes more transactional, asymmetric and insensitive to Indian interests and concerns.
“The risk is not rupture. It is normalisation of a relationship that is increasingly asymmetric and where cooperation on critical issues coexists with consistent inattention to Indian equities.
“That pattern is not conducive to a strong, lasting strategic partnership.”
