For decades, India has pursued a policy of maintaining parallel relationships with rival nations such as Israel, Iran, and the Gulf countries, a strategy that has defined its Middle East diplomacy. That approach is now being tested after the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, which responded with missile attacks on Tel Aviv and parts of the Gulf. With two long-standing strategic partners now in open conflict, questions are being raised about whether India can continue balancing both sides or will ultimately have to lean one way.
India’s initial response suggests a cautious reassessment of its traditional balancing strategy. While calling for restraint and de-escalation, New Delhi has not directly condemned the US-Israel strikes on Iran. Nor has it openly expressed solidarity with Tehran over issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity—principles India frequently upholds. It has also remained silent on the reported killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Has India Tilted Toward One Side?
This silence, especially following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s high-profile visit to Israel, has been interpreted by critics as a sign that India has shifted its position. Sonia Gandhi suggested that India’s stance signals alignment with Israel, while senior BJP leader Amit Malviya described it as prudent and responsible diplomacy.
The debate raises questions about whether India is moving away from its long-standing practice of engaging all sides while prioritizing national interests. This is particularly significant given that more than nine million Indians live and work in the Gulf, and India depends heavily on oil imports from the region.
Former Indian ambassador K.C. Singh argued that Modi’s Israel visit came at an inopportune moment and may have weakened India’s image of neutrality, suggesting that New Delhi is now perceived as leaning toward Israel.
Two Calls, Two Messages
India’s position is reflected in two key phone conversations held by Modi. He spoke with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan after Iranian missile strikes reportedly hit parts of the Gulf, and later with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In his call with the UAE leader, Modi strongly condemned the attacks and expressed condolences, though he did not explicitly name Iran. The UAE’s statement indicated that Modi expressed solidarity with the Emirates and supported measures taken to protect its sovereignty and security.
In contrast, during his conversation with Netanyahu, Modi conveyed concern about the escalating situation and called for an early cessation of hostilities. Notably, there was no similar outreach to Iranian leadership, despite India’s investments in Iran, including the development of the Chabahar port, considered strategically important for accessing Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan.
Under Modi, India’s ties with Israel have deepened significantly, particularly in defence and technology cooperation, with India accounting for a substantial share of Israeli arms exports.
Some observers, including former Indian Army chief Ved Malik, have suggested that although India has not publicly taken a side, its national interests increasingly align more closely with the US-Israel camp.
Opposition Criticism
India’s approach has drawn criticism from opposition leaders. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera described it as a betrayal of Iran, while Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of moral cowardice. Sonia Gandhi, writing in an opinion piece, questioned the government’s silence over Khamenei’s killing, arguing that such silence amounts to tacit approval rather than neutrality.
However, reactions from Muslim-majority countries have also been relatively muted. Of the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), fewer than ten reportedly issued condolences following Khamenei’s death.
Government’s Defence
Responding to the criticism, Amit Malviya stated that responsible diplomacy should not be mistaken for silence. He emphasized that India has consistently called for restraint, respect for sovereignty, and de-escalation, and argued that foreign policy decisions should not be driven by selective outrage.
So far, India’s public messaging has focused on urging peace and stability while avoiding direct condemnation of any party. Whether this calibrated approach will safeguard India’s strategic interests in the long run remains uncertain.
