India’s Strategic Silence On US-Israel Iran Conflict Sparks Debate Over Foreign Policy Shift And Global Standing
· Free Press Journal
If every word has consequences, as French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said, so does every silence. What it means is both speech and silence are active choices with lasting impact. To put it another way, we are responsible for the impact of our words and equally responsible for the consequences that come from staying silent. In diplomacy and foreign policy, calculated silence in a crisis often exposes delicate strategic dilemmas.
Visit freshyourfeel.com for more information.
On the US-Israel war on Iran, India has chosen not to condemn the attack, maintaining instead a calibrated silence. India’s carefully worded diplomatic statements have been justified by the government’s supporters as a practical position aimed at protecting over 10 million Indians working in the Gulf countries and to safeguard India’s energy imports. But in critics’ view, this seems less like strategic restraint and more like a retreat from India’s own long-held principles.
Departure from traditional foreign policy
For decades, India’s diplomatic success in West Asia rested on its ability to maintain good relations with all sides, prioritising neutrality and strategic autonomy. But the shift to strategic silence in the theatre of geopolitics around the ongoing war, said to be a “thoughtful decision” aimed at long-term partnership with Israel and the US, seems an unambiguous departure from India’s traditional foreign policy—a professed commitment to international law and respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. India’s silence or “cautiously neutral” stance on joint US-Israel strikes on Iran, therefore, has been seen by the government’s critics as a diplomatic failure.
Criticism over diplomatic stance
While the Indian government called for restraint and appealed for “dialogue and diplomacy”, it, however, side-stepped the core issue—an unprovoked cross-border strike by two of its strategic partners. Refraining from condemning the violation of Iranian sovereignty, India’s vague position on the ongoing conflict carries symbolic meaning not just for Iran but also for Israel, the US, and the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
In a narrowing strategic space for multi-alignment in a world of sharpening geopolitical rivalries, India has chosen to do away with its traditional policy of careful balance between historical ties with Iran and growing partnerships with the US and Israel. This drift raises questions over India’s global standing and strategic autonomy.
Supporters defend measured approach
Though some call it smart and calibrated statecraft to protect India’s national interest, many critics, including the opposition parties, have seen it as a “surrender of values” and capitulation to the US. The failure or unwillingness to criticise the US-Israel act of aggression and take a clear stand against the violation of international law, according to critics, is not only detrimental to India’s strategic interests, regional influence, and critical energy security but also wears down its non-aligned, rule-based foreign policy.
The consequences of this change in policy approach, critics say, have significant strategic, economic, and diplomatic costs—strategic and diplomatic diminution; direct economic impact on the lives of citizens; risks to strategic assets; and regional instability at a time when India holds the BRICS chair while a member nation has been attacked when a deal was reportedly within reach.
Supporters of the ruling regime, however, defend India’s measured stance on the conflict as a calculated strategic choice to shield its economic stakes in the region rather than weakness, avoiding unnecessary antagonism with key allies like the US and Israel. In their view, sitting on the sidelines of the war is both sensible and realistic.
Reason? In a volatile region like the Middle East, India must prioritise security and economic interests over moral posturing. But critics argue that India’s silence allows it to be seen as a bystander or a “pro-imperialist” actor in its own immediate neighbourhood instead of an emerging independent global actor and leader of the Global South it aspires to be.
Impact on India’s global image
According to critics, a nation that once spoke for the oppressed, choosing neutrality, ambiguity or silence, casts a shadow over India’s history of being a moral voice of the developing world. India has maintained good relations with Russia while also navigating a path to engage with the US. Over the last decade, India has also increased its engagement with Israel, as reflected in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Jerusalem.
Historically, India has maintained close ties with Iran, driven by energy needs, regional stability, and shared geopolitical interests. What seems to have complicated India’s geopolitical calculus is its strategic partnerships with the US, Israel, and the Gulf monarchies, who see Iran and its Islamic leadership as a threat to regional stability.
Geopolitical shift and future challenges
India’s silence can be presented either as strategic autonomy or “diplomatic surrender”, depending on who is talking, but the fact remains that India appears to be caught in a war which it is reluctant to call out for what it is: an unprovoked and illegal attack that many nations, including NATO countries, have refused to support. As the current chair of BRICS, the silence of India’s BRICS presidency is bizarre, given that four of its five original members have criticised the US and Israel for bombing Iran.
India has so far resisted calls to intervene through the grouping, believing it cannot take sides in its role as chair but can facilitate discussions among members to reach a resolution. Former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon said in a recent interview that he finds India’s silence and its actions quite inexplicable. “India has chosen silence on all big issues over the last five years. It diminishes the value of your voice. If you stay silent, then you cannot expect to have a role,” he said.
The current tense relations with Iran, seen against the backdrop of decades-old pragmatic cooperation, reveal a deeper structural shift in India’s foreign policy. Three forces are said to be responsible for reshaping India’s strategic orientation: defence partnership with Israel, strategic convergence with the US, and economic integration with the Western markets.
While India and Iran still publicly call each other friends, emphasising centuries of civilisational exchange, the reality of a changed geopolitical environment seems to have dramatically impacted old ties. For decades, India has had good relations with all Gulf countries simultaneously. But the current conflict and the emerging geopolitical order have impacted India’s ability to continue with its old policy. What does this say about India’s Vishwa Guru posturing?
The writer is a senior independent Mumbai-based journalist. He tweets at @ali_chougule