Listen to this article:

The Modi government’s silence on the US-Israeli war against Iran is being projected as “responsible statecraft”, a claim that deserves serious deliberation. The formulation is eloquent, but it is built on selective reasoning, a critical omission and a fundamental confusion between prudence and deference. 

The central claim is that silence, in the absence of leverage, is a legitimate strategic instrument. It has been claimed in some quarters that India’s muted response to a war reflects the cool calculus of a rising power protecting its interests across multiple fronts. 

This is theoretically defensible. But there is a categorical difference between a considered posture of principled restraint, communicated with clarity; and an opaque silence born of ideological deference to one side. The former is statecraft. The latter is the abdication of statecraft. 

India did not merely stay quiet. It failed to offer even a formal condolence on the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, a basic diplomatic courtesy. This is incomprehensible. Even the states with no leverage and no international heft issue condolences. That India skipped this elementary courtesy suggests the silence is not a strategic calculation. It is a reflexive tilt, calibrated to please Washington and Tel Aviv. 

The defence of India’s silence is grounded in India’s enormous stakes in the Gulf. It’s true that there are valid concerns around safeguarding $200 billion worth of annual trade, critical energy dependence and the welfare of 9 million Indians living across the region. But this comprises only half the picture. It is the other half that is more strategically consequential and yet, missing.

Iran is not merely a trading partner. It is the anchor of the International North-South Transport Corridor and the gateway to Chabahar port. It is India’s own........

© The Wire