New Delhi — Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s sharp criticism of the government’s alleged “silence” over the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has drawn strong rebuttals from political leaders and foreign policy experts, who argue that India’s response reflects calibrated statecraft rather than inaction.
With West Asia witnessing a full-blown conflict following US-Israeli strikes that reportedly led to Khamenei’s death, opposition parties in India have questioned the country’s diplomatic positioning in the region. The Congress and the INDIA bloc have criticised the Centre’s approach towards Iran, accusing it of refraining from condemning the assassination and the violation of Iranian sovereignty.
Responding to the criticism, leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) pointed to instances during Congress-led governments when India adopted a neutral stance or aligned with Western powers in matters involving regimes such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
When the Congress-led UPA government was in power, India voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, 2006 and 2009 during deliberations linked to the India–US Civil Nuclear Agreement. Analysts noted that these votes aligned with Western nations at the time.
In 2011, following the death of Gaddafi during the Libyan uprising, the UPA government did not issue a formal condolence statement or strong condemnation. Political commentators have questioned whether neutrality was acceptable then but is now being portrayed as silence.
Experts have emphasised that India’s foreign policy decisions are guided by national interest, regional stability and the safety of its citizens. “India has decided when to speak and how to speak. It will do so based on its assessment of national interest. That is not silence. That is statecraft,” one analyst said.
The ongoing conflict in West Asia is expected to impact global economies, particularly energy-import dependent countries like India. Observers argue that New Delhi’s approach reflects a careful balancing act amid escalating tensions.
Some experts also pointed to past statements by Khamenei on India’s internal matters, including comments on Kashmir, Article 370 and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), as well as remarks following the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to contextualise India’s diplomatic posture.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken with leaders in West Asia, including Israel and Gulf nations, expressing solidarity while also calling for restraint and dialogue to end armed confrontation.
Political observers maintain that beyond partisan criticism, India’s foreign policy — under successive governments — has largely prioritised national interest. They contend that the current debate reflects domestic political contestation as much as it does diplomatic differences.
With inputs from IANS