‘STRATEGIC silence’ refers to the deliberate choice made by a state to remain silent, indifferent and unconcerned in the context of major armed conflicts. Before and after the ceasefire in the US-Israel war against Iran, several countries attempted to de-escalate tensions between the warring parties. Pakistan, along with Egypt and Türkiye, has played the role of facilitator or peace-broker to de-escalate hostilities between Iran and the US. However, India, which is a larger country in both size and population, and has stronger economic and political clout, has shown reluctance to initiate peace efforts, despite enjoying cordial relations with both Israel and Iran. This is not the only conflict where New Delhi has chosen ‘strategic silence’ over proactive peace diplomacy. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict too, India has remained a silent observer and played a cautious role.

Why is India reluctant to play the role of peace-broker in major conflicts? What are the strategic, political and historical factors that limit India to sitting on the fence and observing these conflicts as a silent spectator?

At the core of this posture lies the enduring imprint of the Nehruvian legacy. The principles laid out by India’s first prime minister, including non-alignment and an inward-looking foreign policy, continue to define New Delhi’s external policies today. Although, in the post-Cold War era, non-alignment has been replaced with the principles of multi-alignment and strategic autonomy, New Delhi’s fundamental political behaviour remains unchanged. New Delhi is highly cautious and reluctant to act as a peace-broker or side with a particular party in armed conflicts, especially those involving........

© Dawn