By Mahesh Rathi
Elon Musk had remarked sarcastically about Mukesh Ambani that Ambani is the real boss of India. This comment, made in the context of allowing Starlink to enter India and its competition with Reliance Jio, was merely a business-related taunt. But American Foreign Secretary Marco Rubio’s visit to Jamnagar and Mumbai has given it a broader political meaning. Rubio holding talks with India’s Foreign Minister in Mumbai instead of New Delhi and then reaching Reliance’s mega refining complex in Jamnagar is not merely a matter of the travel programme. It points towards a changing world order in which, along with elected governments and national institutions, corporate centres of power are also being directly cultivated.
The question is not which city a foreign minister visits. The question is what message is being conveyed by the timing of the visit, its economic context and the sequence of American policies. India-US relations are moving forward amid trade tensions, pressure over purchasing oil from Russia, and wars in West Asia. The Trump administration put pressure on India to reduce purchases of Russian oil, issued threats of punitive tariffs and linked the trade agreement to American interests. Now, amid the energy crisis, flexibility is visible in the American position. This makes it clear that Washington’s policy is not driven by the embraces between Modi and Trump, but by American strategic and economic interests.
Jamnagar is one of the world’s largest refining complexes. This refinery of Reliance processes crude oil arriving from different countries. Purchasing Russian oil and selling the products prepared from it in international markets has been part of this business. On the other hand, there is discussion about American permission concerning Venezuelan oil and Reliance’s participation in a new refinery project in Brownsville, Texas. This American project has been linked to energy production, employment and security of supply.
It would be hasty to describe these two arrangements as proof of a single secret plan, but Reliance’s business interests are spread across the energy systems of both India and America. On the one hand, India has to face American pressure to purchase Russian oil; on the other hand, America wants to determine the sources of oil, processing and supply routes according to its energy requirements. The question is where India’s independent energy policy and the interests of its citizens stand in this restructuring. Will India’s refining capacity be used according to independent national priorities, or according to the requirements of American strategy and global corporate profits?
American military action in Venezuela and the incident of President Nicolás Maduro being captured and taken to America, as well as American military action against Iran, make this question even broader. The Trump administration has shown that military power, economic sanctions and trade conditions can be used to serve its interests. Influence over energy supplies and maritime trade routes are important parts of American strategy.
Today, the method of challenging a country’s sovereignty is not limited to direct occupation or military intervention. The freedom of national decisions can also be restricted through sanctions, access to markets, energy dependence, investment and local corporate partnerships. This is the danger of a new kind of global corporate alliance, in which a country’s economic power can be linked to the strategic requirements of a great power instead of its own national interests.
Against this background, questions about the role of the Modi government naturally arise. The display of personal closeness between Modi and Trump has continued for years. Embracing each other, displaying informality, getting joint photographs taken and building a political image through them—is this an alternative to foreign policy? If, despite all this, India has to face American pressure over energy purchases, trade and strategic decisions, what benefit has this friendship brought to the country?
Rubio’s visit does not, by itself, prove that Modi has become completely irrelevant to America. But it certainly raises the serious question of whether, for the American administration, economic arrangements and corporate centres of power through which American interests can be directly fulfilled are more important than Modi’s personal closeness. The question of Modi’s strategic irrelevance emerges in this sense. For an imperialist power, friendship is not a permanent principle but a means of serving its interests. America can use the leadership, business groups or political system of any country to serve its interests.
Musk’s taunt about Ambani also exposes the contradictions of this corporate world. The competition between Starlink and Jio shows that even within global capital, struggles continue over markets, technology and influence. The Trump administration can cooperate with one business group and clash with the interests of another. American interests are the decisive criterion. The responsibility of the Indian government is not to ensure the victory of an American businessman or the expansion of an Indian billionaire, but to protect the people and the country’s right to make independent decisions.
The relatively low price of Russian crude oil can reduce the costs of refineries, increase companies’ profits and provide relief in the country’s import bill. But this does not mean that ordinary citizens received cheaper petrol and diesel. Domestic prices are influenced by taxes, marketing margins, international markets and government pricing policies. If a large part of the benefit from cheap oil remains limited to private companies while the public continues to buy expensive fuel, then whose interests does the energy policy serve? The privatisation of profits and the socialisation of losses are old tendencies of the capitalist system.
From the Indian perspective, Rubio’s visit is not merely a dispute about a visit or the Prime Minister’s image. It is a question about a system in which large corporate powers influence national policies and imperialist forces restrict countries’ choices through economic and military pressure. From whom India should purchase oil, how it should use its refining capacity and with which countries it should trade—these decisions should be based on the interests of the Indian people and independent national priorities, not on Washington’s permission or displeasure.
The question remains the same: who is the real boss of India? The people of the country and its sovereign institutions, or corporate interests linked to global capital and the great power that serves them? The meaning of national sovereignty is not merely a flag, elections and the office of the Prime Minister; it means taking decisions related to the economy and foreign policy without external pressure. If the Modi government cannot protect this freedom by moving beyond embraces and photo sessions, its global image will not be able to protect India’s sovereignty. The people of India will have to decide whether the country’s policy will operate in the interests of the people or according to the corporate alliance and American dominance. (IPA Service)
