On Friday, the BJP circulated a video clip in which Tharoor is seen defending the Centre’s response to the conflict, pushing back against criticism from sections of the opposition. In the interview, he remarked that even if he were advising a Congress-led government, he would have recommended a similarly cautious approach. According to him, restraint should not be mistaken for passivity or surrender; instead, it demonstrates a clear understanding of national interests and a commitment to safeguarding them above all else.
The BJP quickly highlighted his comments, portraying them as an endorsement of the Modi government’s diplomatic strategy. The party stated that at a time of heightened global uncertainty, India’s measured and balanced response stands out as an example of mature and responsible statecraft.
In the early stages of the conflict, India adopted a cautious position, refraining from openly criticising US-Israel actions against Iran and avoiding alignment with any particular side. As the situation intensified, particularly after disruptions to energy supplies caused by Iran’s effective control over the Strait of Hormuz—a critical route for a significant portion of the world’s oil and gas—India began engaging more actively through diplomatic channels.
New Delhi initiated quiet but strategic outreach to Iran. This included symbolic gestures such as India’s foreign secretary signing a condolence register following the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Subsequently, Prime Minister Modi held direct discussions with the Iranian President, while External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar maintained ongoing communication with his Iranian counterpart. These diplomatic efforts reportedly resulted in Iran allowing safe passage for two LPG tankers and one crude oil vessel through the Strait of Hormuz, a move widely viewed as a significant diplomatic success.
This balanced engagement has enabled India to maintain working relationships with multiple stakeholders involved in the conflict, without compromising its own strategic interests. Tharoor has acknowledged and supported this approach in several of his recent media interactions.
In the same interview, he also pointed out that the prolonged nature of the conflict between the US-Israel bloc and Iran has limited the scope of action for countries like India. He suggested that instead of taking sides, India should focus on playing a constructive role by encouraging dialogue and helping reduce tensions between the opposing parties. He noted that nations such as India are well-positioned to advocate for peace and provide a pathway for de-escalation.
A day earlier, in an opinion piece published in The Indian Express, Tharoor reiterated his views, describing India’s stance as one of “strategic prudence.” He clarified that India’s decision to remain relatively silent should not be interpreted as support for the conflict, but rather as a deliberate choice driven by national interest, where careful judgment takes precedence over rhetorical positioning.
