War Has Reached India’s Shores, Why Strategic Silence Is No Longer an Option
For decades, India has prided itself on a foreign policy of strategic autonomy, a carefully calibrated balancing act that allows it to maintain relationships with all major powers while avoiding entanglement in their conflicts. This policy of “multi-alignment” has served the nation well, enabling it to import discounted Russian oil while deepening its strategic partnership with the United States, and to invest in the Chabahar port with Iran while joining the US-led Quad with Australia, Japan, and the US. But the current US-Israel war on Iran has fundamentally altered the regional calculus. With an Iranian warship sunk by a US submarine near Sri Lanka’s coast, the conflict has reached India’s maritime doorstep. As Professor Rajan Kumar of Jawaharlal Nehru University argues in a compelling analysis, the era of strategic silence is over. India must now find a new, more proactive voice.
The origins of the current conflagration lie in a long-cherished American goal: to achieve hegemonic control over West Asia. The US and Israel launched their joint military strike on Iran with the explicit aim of enabling regime change and installing a hand-picked ruler who would be amenable to American interests, particularly in controlling the region’s vast hydrocarbon resources. The opportunity seemed ripe. Iran appeared more vulnerable than it had in decades. Internally, protests were brewing against the regime’s brutal suppression of dissent. Externally, its network of allies and proxies was severely debilitated. Tehran’s key security partner, Russia, was bogged down in its own war with Ukraine and unable to offer meaningful support. China, while a major trading partner, was unwilling to sacrifice its commercial interests with Washington. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Iran’s traditional instruments of regional pressure, had been decimated by previous campaigns. And for the Global South, Iran was not seen as an indispensable partner. In a world where leading powers preferred neutrality and strategic silence, the hegemon saw an opening to write new rules of the game.
The pretext for the attack was, as always, curbing Iran’s nuclear capacity. This was a deception. Iran had been cooperating within the framework of the 2015 Nuclear Deal, from which the Trump administration had arbitrarily withdrawn in 2018. Even at the most recent Geneva negotiations in February 2026, Iran had agreed to halt uranium enrichment, and the negotiating parties had reported significant progress. Yet, within days, US and Israeli missiles were raining down on Tehran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and decimating the top political and military leadership. The message was clear: for this administration, negotiation was not a path to peace, but a cover for preparation for war.
The US calculation was that a swift, decisive blow would lead to the collapse of the Iranian regime. That has not happened. The regime endures, and resistance persists. Iran’s response has been swift and strategic. It has launched aerial strikes on American bases in as many as 12 countries, signaling that any nation hosting US forces is a potential target. Its strategy is clear: to widen the conflict, to overtretch US military resources, and to increase the economic and political costs for America’s allies. As an extension of this strategy, Tehran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes. Brent crude, which traded at $65 a barrel before the war, has now soared past $90. Gas prices have risen considerably. Inflation, that persistent economic malady, is being reignited across the globe. The war is no longer a distant conflict; it is a direct economic shock to every nation.
For India, the war has moved from an economic concern to a direct strategic challenge. The moment of impact came when the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena was sunk by a US submarine near the coast of Sri Lanka. The ship was returning to Iran after participating in an Indian naval exercise. It was, in effect, a guest of the Indian Navy, operating in what India considers its primary maritime sphere of influence. The US action was a stark, unambiguous signal: in this conflict, there are no bystanders. India’s concerns, its protocols, its guests, are irrelevant to the US war machine. Many strategic thinkers in New Delhi are urging the government to lodge a formal diplomatic protest. The act demands a response. Silence in the face of such a provocation is not neutrality; it is submission.
India’s immediate concerns are, of course, humanitarian and economic. The safety of the thousands of Indian nationals still working in the Gulf region is paramount. A major evacuation, on the scale of the 1990 airlift from Kuwait, may become necessary, and the logistical challenges are immense. Securing an uninterrupted supply of oil, gas, and fertilizers is another critical priority. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has already disrupted supply chains, and India will need to navigate this crisis with a combination of diplomatic outreach, strategic reserves, and alternative sourcing.
But the long-term strategic questions are far more profound. India’s policy of multi-alignment was built on the assumption that the major powers would compete, but not collide in ways that directly threatened Indian interests. That assumption is now in tatters. The US has demonstrated that it is willing to act unilaterally, without regard for its partners, and to violate the sovereignty of nations in its pursuit of “regime change.” The sinking of the IRIS Dena is a shot across India’s bow.
Professor Kumar argues that India must now move beyond strategic silence and develop a new, more proactive philosophy. This does not mean abandoning multi-alignment, but it does mean using India’s considerable diplomatic weight to facilitate the resolution of conflicts, rather than simply waiting for them to end. India should consider developing mechanisms for dialogue and cessation of hostilities in collaboration with like-minded partners, including BRICS nations and European countries that are also suffering from the economic fallout of the war. The world is fragmenting, and the old certainties are gone. In this new, more dangerous environment, India cannot afford to be a silent spectator. It must become a shaper of events, or risk being perpetually shaped by them. The war has reached India’s shores. The time for strategic silence is over.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What was the stated pretext for the US-Israeli attack on Iran, and why does the author call this a deception?
A1: The stated pretext was to curb Iran’s nuclear capacity. The author calls this a deception because Iran was cooperating within the 2015 Nuclear Deal framework and, at the February 2026 Geneva negotiations, had agreed to halt uranium enrichment, with negotiators reporting significant progress. The attack came despite this diplomatic progress, revealing the true goal of regime change.
Q2: According to the article, what was the larger, unstated goal of the US in launching this war?
A2: The larger goal is to achieve hegemonic influence in West Asia. The US aims to enable regime change in Iran, install a hand-picked ruler, and take control of the region’s hydrocarbon resources. It also seeks to block Russia and China from expanding their influence in the region and become the sole arbiter of regional security.
Q3: Why did the US and Israel believe the timing was right to attack Iran?
A3: They believed Iran was at its most vulnerable point. Internally, protests were brewing against the regime. Externally, its key allies were debilitated: Russia was tied down in Ukraine, China was unwilling to risk its commercial ties with the US, and its proxy forces (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) had been decimated. The Global South also did not see Iran as indispensable.
Q4: How has the sinking of the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena changed the nature of the conflict for India?
A4: The IRIS Dena was returning after participating in an Indian naval exercise when it was sunk by a US submarine near Sri Lanka. This act brought the war directly to India’s maritime doorstep. It demonstrated that the US is willing to act without regard for India’s concerns, protocols, or guests, transforming the conflict from an economic worry into a direct strategic challenge requiring a diplomatic response.
Q5: What does the author propose as India’s new long-term strategy in response to this conflict?
A5: The author argues that India must move beyond “strategic silence” and develop a more proactive philosophy. Instead of just managing consequences, India should use its diplomatic weight to facilitate dialogue and cessation of conflicts in collaboration with partners like BRICS nations and European countries. India’s policy of multi-alignment must evolve to include active conflict resolution.
