Modi’s muted response to Iran strikes is not unprincipled

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand RussellIn a conflict-driven world demanding something or the other from every party, whether directly concerned or not, the wise should normally choose silence over adding to the cacophony. India’s relative silence on the deadly Iran-Israel-US conflict, which is now engulfing the whole of West Asia, should be a sign of maturity, not abdication or cowardice, as Sonia Gandhi has chosen to view it.Free from the restraints and responsibilities of office, the Opposition is characterising the Modi government’s muted response to the air strikes that decapitated the Iranian top leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as unprincipled.The fact is no government anywhere in the world acts purely on the basis of stated principles; rather, they adjust the sails of principle to the stronger winds of self-interest and common sense.There are also more basic realities underlying the relatively muted Indian response in this conflict. Empty statement-mongering is one thing, the ability to influence outcomes is quite another. Does it make sense for India to take a strong position on the Israel-US attacks on Iran, when it has no real leverage over the former? India came under heavy European and US criticism when we did not condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but could India really have deterred Russia from securing its own interests in Ukraine, when the West refused to respect any of the Russian red lines on the expansion of NATO?So, the first reason to stay muted on global events depends on whether or not we can influence the outcome by being more aggressive in our praise or condemnation of anyone’s actions.Second, India has huge, really huge, interests in West Asia, from crude and gas imports to exports. It has interests in Iran’s Chabahar port and the safety of a few thousand Indians in Iran to counterbalance with its interests in the rest of the Gulf region. The latter outweighs the former. With nearly 9-10 million Indians working there and two free trade agreements to protect (with UAE and Oman, with more underway), the balance of interest clearly shifts towards the sides that are threatened by Iran’s scorched-earth attacks on its neighbours and not Iran itself.Third, in Israel, India has had a real friend in times of need. Iran, at the best of times, has been uninterested in anything beyond trade with India. Its position on Jammu and Kashmir has been downright anti-India.Fourth, even Turkiye, which fancies itself as the pivot around which a future soft Caliphate can be organised, has done nothing more than criticise Israel. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, where China and Russia have greater voice, has also been muted in its condemnation of the Israel-US strikes in Iran. Its statement neither mentions the killing of Khamenei, nor Israel or the US. While condemning the use of force and expressing concern over the loss of lives, it reiterates the need to use only dialogue and diplomacy to resolve disputes. This is no different from the Indian position.China has also asked Iran to refrain from attacking ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This again would, beyond the optics, mean the Indian and Chinese positions on trade movements in the region are similar.Fifth, there has been criticism about the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel barely a day or two ahead of the attacks on Iran. Some believe that India effectively endorsed the attacks. But coincidence is not correlation. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was on a visit to China as the External Affairs Minister in 1979 when it attacked Vietnam, but nobody then assumed that he was complicit in the attack. One can, of course, suspect that Modi was given a broad indication that an attack was round the corner, but this only shows that they gave India the chance to nuance its position and not be taken entirely by surprise.Even in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India could largely do what it wanted to with Russian oil, till US President Donald Trump did an about-turn after India declined to accept that he mediated a truce between India and Pakistan after Operation Sindoor. What these two wars indicate is that India is slowly emerging as a swing state whose silence or quiet concurrence is sought by global powers when it matters to their own security interests. Surely, the Opposition cannot object to this growing Indian heft in geopolitics, even though it would be a stretch to say that we can influence outcomes. Silence is golden in this situation, a behind-the-scenes diplomacy India’s best bet.The bottom line is that India’s relatively muted reaction to the Iran war, the Russia-Ukraine war, as also its refusal to respond to US taunts when Trump’s lackeys were saying nasty things about India, must be judged by long-term outcomes. Our refusal to respond to Trumpian barbs finally got us a trade deal (though the final outcome of that depends more on US politics than our own negotiating capabilities). As we quietly signed up trade deals with the EU, Oman, New Zealand and others, the US had reason to not let India slip out of its arc of diplomatic influence entirely.In today’s transactional world, it is not possible to run foreign policy based purely on hoary principles or morality. This was not possible even earlier, for in the past we were in the Soviet orbit, and did not rush to condemn anything they did in Czechoslovakia or Hungary or Afghanistan. Nor did we become too vocal when the US bombarded the daylights out of Belgrade in 1999, or when the US took out Saddam Hussein in the fraudulent search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or when Barack Obama backed rebels to capture and take out Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Libya is now a torn nation.The problem with principles is that they often break on the rock of hard interests. In diplomacy as in realpolitik, Groucho Marx probably had the best quote to offer. He said: “These are my principles, but if you don’t like them, I have others…” In Iran, the US and Israel used the autocracy of the Ayatollahs and Iran’s bid to acquire nuclear weapons as the reasons to override the principle of sovereignty.

Modi’s muted response to Iran strikes is not unprincipled

India’s relative silence on the Iran-Israel-US conflict should be a sign of maturity, not abdication or cowardice, as Sonia Gandhi has chosen to view it.

R Jagannathan

Modi’s muted response to Iran strikes is not unprincipled

India’s relative silence on the Iran-Israel-US conflict should be a sign of maturity, not abdication or cowardice, as Sonia Gandhi has chosen to view it.

R Jagannathan

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article