India’s Silence on War in West Asia Is Moral Evasion
As the US-Israel War on Iran Rages, New Delhi’s Strategic Muteness Raises Questions About What Strategic Autonomy Really Means—And Whether India Is Sacrificing Its Moral Voice at the Altar of Expediency
The debate in India over the conflict in West Asia centres on the meaning and application of strategic autonomy. There is a view that the government’s approach, marked by silence and expediency, has effectively equated strategic autonomy with the absence of a moral or ethical stance. The Narendra Modi government has been accused of remaining silent on what is described as a unilateral, immoral, and illegal war initiated by the US and Israel on Iran.
Modi’s statements in Parliament have only reinforced those charges. The Prime Minister has detailed the contours of the crisis, cautioned the country on the painful days that lie ahead, but shied away from answering the core question. What is India’s position on this war? Does it support it, oppose it, or simply hope it will end without requiring a clear statement of principle?
New Delhi doesn’t need to pick a side in this war, but for a country dreaming of vishwaguru status, it is important to take a stand. The Global South, too, expects that. Once the fog of war clears, just how does India plan to address the trust deficit we are accumulating through this painful balancing act?
The Cost of Silence
The war is inflicting severe harm. Every sector of the economy, from petrochemicals to mining, is reeling, leading to widespread unemployment and rising inflation that burdens households. The Prime Minister himself underscored the long-term costs of this war when he told Parliament that its impact is likely to be felt for a long time.
Yet silence in the face of such suffering is not neutrality; it is a choice. It is a choice to prioritise certain relationships over others, to calculate interests rather than articulate principles. And it is a choice that carries consequences for how India is perceived—not only by its adversaries but also by its friends.
The war has disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, choked energy supplies, sent oil prices soaring, and destabilised an already volatile region. Indian workers have been displaced. Indian businesses have been disrupted. Indian families are paying higher prices for fuel and food. These are not abstract concerns; they are the tangible costs of a conflict in which India has chosen to say nothing.
A Historical Contrast
Historically, India has never interpreted strategic autonomy as synonymous with silence or strict neutrality. During the 2003 Iraq War, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee ensured that both houses of Parliament passed resolutions condemning the invasion, despite the US having strong allies and a fabricated pretext of “weapons of mass destruction.”
That was a different India—one that was willing to speak truth to power, to take a stand based on principle even when it was not convenient. The Vajpayee government had strong relations with the US, which were developing rapidly. Yet it did not hesitate to condemn an illegal war. It understood that strategic autonomy is not about pleasing all sides but about having the confidence to state one’s position clearly.
The current conflict lacks any credible justification. Even Western allies have expressed wariness about US and Israeli plans. Domestic opinion in the US, generally supportive of such initiatives, has been appalled by the recklessness involved. Yet India remains silent.
The Embrace
India, which positions itself as a leader of the Global South, now appears to side with the US and Israel. While Western allies distanced themselves from Netanyahu, India’s Prime Minister was seen embracing him just 48 hours before the war began. When the Prime Minister told Vladimir Putin that “this is not an era of war,” it carried no small moral perspective. Yet, while addressing the Knesset, the tone and content of his remarks appeared closer to cheerleading.
This is not to suggest that India should have no relations with Israel. It is to ask why the same moral clarity that was applied to the Ukraine war is absent here. If war is not an era, then it is not an era everywhere. If aggression is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of who commits it.
The Double Standard
The Prime Minister’s address to the Knesset was notable for what it did not say. There was no mention of the children killed in the bombing of a Tehran school. There was no mention of the attacks on Iranian fighters after India had hosted them in the Indian Ocean. There was no expression of concern about the escalation of a conflict that threatens to engulf the entire region.
This double standard is not lost on the world. When India speaks eloquently about the need for peace in Ukraine, the Global South applauds. When India remains silent on Gaza, on Iran, on the actions of its strategic partners, that applause turns to scepticism. The moral authority that India has built over decades is being eroded, one silence at a time.
The Tharoor Thesis
Ironically, India’s ambivalence has won unexpected endorsement from figures like Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. His views appear to contradict the stance articulated by his own party. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, with Tharoor as chairman, has not aligned itself with any conclusive view on the full range of issues. Instead, Tharoor has launched a strong critique of so-called liberals who have condemned the government’s silence.
Tharoor bases his argument on the premise that strategic autonomy means pursuing national interests without being burdened by moral, ethical, historical, or civilisational considerations. In essence, he suggests that if subservience to the US and Israel yields greater dividends, that should define India’s approach.
This is a narrow and impoverished view of national interest. National interest is not just about immediate economic gain or strategic alignment. It is also about the kind of country India wants to be, the values it wants to uphold, and the role it wants to play in the world. A country that sacrifices its moral voice for short-term advantage will find that it has nothing left to offer when the crisis passes.
The Problem with Expediency
Those who equate strategic autonomy with a kind of strategic muteness must note that the US has never shied away from stating its intentions regarding India’s role. Washington has repeatedly signalled that it opposes India’s rise, with officials stating that the “mistakes” made with China will not be repeated. Figures like Marco Rubio have invoked civilisational and colonial anxieties in urging Western unity.
Can anyone seriously claim that halting oil purchases from Iran and Venezuela protected India’s strategic autonomy? These were not choices made freely; they were responses to pressure. And each concession, each silence, each act of accommodation has only invited further demands.
The current approach is not even true expediency; it is counterproductive and retrograde. It weakens India’s standing in the Global South, which has long looked to New Delhi as a leader. It cedes moral authority to others. It creates a trust deficit that will be difficult to repair.
The Vishwaguru Question
India’s ambition to become a vishwaguru—a world leader—cannot be realised through silence. Leadership requires voice. It requires the courage to take stands, even when they are unpopular. It requires consistency between words and actions, between principles and practice.
The Global South expects India to speak for it, to articulate its concerns, to challenge the dominance of the powerful. When India remains silent on a war that is devastating the region, it is not just failing its own people; it is failing those who look to it for leadership.
The countries of the Global South are watching. They see India embracing the US and Israel while the West bombs Iran. They see India’s silence on the killing of children in Tehran, on the destruction of infrastructure, on the escalation of a conflict that could spiral out of control. They wonder whether India is still the voice of the Global South or whether it has chosen to join the powerful instead.
The Path Forward
In the multipolar disorder now unfolding, India must remain flexible in responding to emerging situations. Flexibility is not the same as silence. It is possible to maintain relationships with all parties while still speaking clearly about principles. It is possible to pursue national interests without abandoning moral commitments.
What is needed is a foreign policy that is both strategic and principled—one that recognises that India’s interests are best served when it is respected, not just feared or placated. A country that is silent in the face of aggression cannot credibly claim to stand for peace. A country that equivocates on fundamental principles cannot be a world leader.
India’s struggle for independence was built on moral clarity. The ethical principles that shaped India’s worldview, rooted in non-violence and non-alignment, were not luxuries to be discarded when they became inconvenient. They were the foundation of India’s identity and the source of its moral authority.
That authority is now being squandered. The trust deficit that India is accumulating through this painful balancing act will not be easily repaired. Once the fog of war clears, India will have to answer for its silence. And the answer will not be that it was acting in its national interest, because a nation that cannot speak for what is right has no true interest to defend.
Q&A: Unpacking India’s Silence on the Iran War
Q1: What is the central argument of the article regarding India’s response to the Iran war?
A: The author argues that India’s silence on the US-Israel war on Iran represents moral evasion, not strategic autonomy. While India does not need to pick sides, its refusal to take a clear stand undermines its claim to vishwaguru (world leader) status and erodes its credibility with the Global South. The government’s approach—marked by silence and expediency—has equated strategic autonomy with the absence of moral or ethical stance.
Q2: How does the author contrast the current government’s response with India’s historical approach?
A: The author cites the 2003 Iraq War, when Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee ensured that both houses of Parliament passed resolutions condemning the US invasion, despite strong India-US relations. That India was willing to speak truth to power based on principle. The current approach stands in stark contrast, with India embracing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu just 48 hours before the war began while remaining silent on the conflict’s illegality.
Q3: What criticism does the author make of Shashi Tharoor’s position on India’s silence?
A: Tharoor has argued that strategic autonomy means pursuing national interests without being burdened by moral, ethical, or civilisational considerations. The author rejects this as a narrow and impoverished view of national interest, arguing that a country that sacrifices its moral voice for short-term advantage will have nothing left to offer when the crisis passes. The author contends this approach is counterproductive and retrograde, weakening India’s standing in the Global South.
Q4: What does the author say about the double standard in India’s foreign policy?
A: The author notes that Prime Minister Modi told Vladimir Putin that “this is not an era of war” regarding Ukraine, yet his address to the Knesset appeared closer to cheerleading. There has been no mention of the 165 children killed in the bombing of a Tehran school or the attacks on Iranian fighters after India hosted them. This double standard erodes India’s moral authority, as the Global South notices when India speaks eloquently on some conflicts but remains silent on others.
Q5: What is the author’s vision for a more principled Indian foreign policy?
A: The author argues for a foreign policy that is both strategic and principled—one that recognises India’s interests are best served when it is respected, not just feared or placated. India can maintain relationships with all parties while still speaking clearly about principles. The ethical principles rooted in non-violence and non-alignment that shaped India’s worldview should not be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. A nation that cannot speak for what is right has no true interest to defend.
