Donald Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro has once again caused confusion, and this time India is in the middle of it. Speaking on Fox News, Navarro accused “Brahmins” of profiteering from India’s oil purchases from Russia. The problem? Americans often use “Boston Brahmins” to mean their own old-money elites in Massachusetts. But in India, the word Brahmin immediately signals caste.
The result: Indians spent an entire day debating what Navarro “really” meant. Did he attack caste elites in India? Did he mean Boston elites in America? Or was he just trying to impress Trump with words he didn’t fully understand?
What should have been dismissed as yet another clumsy Navarro remark quickly became a storm. Worse, parts of India’s anti-government chatterati bent over backwards to explain his statement, insisting that Navarro was actually referring to Boston Brahmins. This defence was less about clarity and more about showing they belonged to a global, sophisticated club of English speakers.
Indians often joke about Americans misunderstanding India. Many only know of the Taj Mahal because of Trump’s failed casino, not the monument in Agra. So when Navarro used the word “Brahmin,” Indians assumed he was talking about caste. After all, that is the only way the word is understood here.
But some insisted he meant Boston Brahmins—a 19th-century American term for wealthy Protestant elites of Massachusetts. The phrase was coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1860, precisely because Americans saw a similarity between India’s high-status Brahmins and their own ruling class.
So yes, Navarro may have been trying to sound clever. But his context was Fox News, where Trump supporters wanted to hear tough talk about India’s oil trade. Most viewers wouldn’t know—or care—about Boston’s elite families. They just heard the word Brahmin, and it sounded like caste. Indians did too.
Instead of calling it a gaffe, some commentators defended Navarro as if he were a thoughtful anthropologist. Suddenly, Trump’s aide wasn’t blundering; he was making a refined cultural reference. It was a bizarre attempt to protect him, all in the name of opposing Modi.
Let’s not forget why Navarro was even on Fox News. He was defending Trump’s decision to slap a 50% tariff on Indian exports. To justify this, he painted a picture of greedy elites profiting from cheap Russian oil while “the Indian people” suffered.
The irony is hard to miss. Here was an American economist, speaking from a TV studio in the US, telling Indians to “understand what is going on here”—as if 1.4 billion people needed a lecture about their own economy. Indians, many of whom speak English better than Fox’s audience, were being treated like schoolchildren.
Worse, Navarro’s comment wasn’t based on facts. In India, oil refineries aren’t owned by street vendors or neighbourhood families. They are controlled by large corporations, many publicly listed, and yes, some wealthy business groups. But painting this as “Brahmins profiteering” was lazy and misleading.
It was also a convenient distraction. Trump’s tariffs were declared illegal by US courts in the past. By throwing caste into the debate, Navarro shifted attention from economics to identity politics.
What should Indians take from all this? First, Navarro is not a cultural expert. He is a political operative who uses big words to make simple points sound dramatic. Reading depth into his statements only gives them more weight than they deserve.
Second, it shows how eager some in India are to prove sophistication. By rushing to argue that Navarro meant Boston Brahmins, not Indian ones, they weren’t clarifying—they were showing off. It became a competition of who knew obscure American history better.
Finally, this episode is a reminder of how fragile global debates can be when words travel across cultures. A word like Brahmin carries centuries of meaning in India, but in America, it is an old-fashioned reference few remember. When misused, it sparks confusion on both sides.
ALSO READ: Comparing losses in gaming and investing sparks debate on regulation
The smart response would have been to laugh it off. Navarro’s record shows he thrives on provocation—whether it’s calling the Ukraine war “Modi’s war” or accusing Indian elites of profiteering. His goal is not accuracy but attention.
India should treat this as noise, not serious analysis. A Trump aide fumbling with cultural metaphors does not deserve full-day news cycles. The real issue is trade, tariffs, and how India manages its global partnerships—not how Navarro misuses a word.
In the end, the outrage says more about us than about him. We turned a sloppy Fox News soundbite into a national argument about caste, class, and Boston history. Navarro may have barked up the wrong tree, but Indians didn’t need to climb it after him.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash