Time for India to stand firm in West Asian crisis

RECENT geopolitical developments have sharply profiled the gap between the Union government’s rhetoric and its policies as well as articulation — or the lack of it. Aboard INS Vikrant in October last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasised that the Indian Navy “stands guard like a sentinel of the Indian Ocean”.

However, four months later, the sinking of Iran’s naval vessel IRIS Dena by a US submarine 35 km off the Sri Lankan coast elicited silence. Perhaps, India was legally not required to comment on a vessel returning home after participating in India’s MILAN 2026 multilateral naval exercise and the International Fleet Review. But there is law and then there is decency and perception. And, the general perception is that the absence of regret regarding IRIS Dena was in line with the Modi government’s cave-in to the US over the past year.

This perception was only strengthened by External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar’s short tutorial on the Indian Ocean at the recent Raisina Dialogue in Delhi. On Iranian naval vessels, he said the three which took part in the Fleet Review hosted by India “got caught on the wrong side of events”. He went on to say that India allowed one of them to reach the Kochi port as a humanitarian gesture; Sri Lanka accepted a second one. He then said, “One, unfortunately, did not make it”. This is how he referred to the torpedoing of IRIS Dena on March 4. Eighty-seven bodies were recovered by the Sri Lankan Navy, while 32 sailors were rescued.

If it was humanity which made India accommodate an Iranian naval vessel, Jaishankar's reference to IRIS Dena’s sinking and the loss of lives was less than humane. It was insensitive and not in keeping with India’s cultural tradition of respectful reference to the dead, whatever be the circumstances.

Jaishankar, with his wealth of diplomatic experience which has been strengthened by his almost seven years as EAM, should be aware that his reference can only be perceived as kowtowing to the US. Even now he should make amends. It is never too late to do so. Is the prospect of annoying the US paralysing India’s moves?

It was strange that the first statement by the Ministry of External Affairs regarding developments in Iran did not make any mention of the Israeli-US attacks on February 28 and the decapitating strikes against the Iranian leadership which killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and members of his family. It called for restraint and urged that “dialogue and diplomacy should be pursued to de-escalate tensions and address underlying issues. Sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states must be respected”. The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader should have been, at a minimum, regretted. This was especially so as it had taken place in the context of US leaders asserting that European expansionism should be a matter of pride for the West and not of “guilt or shame”. It was good that the government sent Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri to sign the condolence book at the Iranian embassy and thus partially retrieved lost ground.

No voice was raised by the ruling dispensation against US leaders’ speeches and actions virtually defending colonialism. The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and the strikes against Iran were part of an approach which was reminiscent of the wilful assertion of power by the East India Company in India in the 18th century and the first half of the 19th. Then too, rulers were deposed and new ones put on the throne by an external power. Now, Trump is asserting that the leaders of Iran should be chosen by him or be acceptable to him. This is blowing up the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

The pursuit of national interest is the first task of any government. Successive Indian governments have held this as their supreme objective. If principles have come in the way, they have overlooked them. Thus, India did not protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 which was accompanied by the killing of President Hafizullah Amin by Soviet commandos in his home. The only difference between the Soviet killing of Amin and the assassination of Khamenei was that the latter was avowedly done in the context of a virtual colonial project.

It is ironic that if the Jana Sangh was critical of the Soviet invasion and even more of India’s silence on the issue, now the BJP-led government is silent on the US action against Iran. It is noteworthy that the Jana Sangh had considered Indira Gandhi’s Afghan policy to have lowered “India’s prestige in the world”. Today, it is the Congress targeting the BJP in the same vein.

That colonial project was also reflected in the speech of US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau at the Raisina Dialogue. He made an impassioned case for an India-US partnership, but at the same time cautioned that “India should understand that we are not going to make the same mistakes with India that we made with China 20 years ago… We are going to make sure that whatever we do is fair to our people”.

This was extraordinarily insulting to the Indian people because India’s progress since Independence has not been dependent on any other power’s benevolence. It has been achieved by the Indian people. But here was a senior foreign officer virtually telling Indians on Indian soil that there were limits to the government’s desire for Viksit Bharat.

It is strange that neither the government nor anyone from the ruling dispensation has responded to Landau’s message so far. There is a time for silence and a time for a firm response. Now is a time for the latter. The world has to be made aware that India acts and speaks to defend its views and will not allow anyone to come in the way of its progress. Such action is derived from its civilisational ethos.