Iran is set to hold a state funeral for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from July 4 to 9 across Tehran, Qom, and his hometown of Mashhad, an event expected to be among the largest funeral gatherings in recent memory. Although Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian personally invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend, India has opted to send Minister of State for External Affairs Pabitra Margherita and Bihar Governor Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd) as its representatives. The decision has sparked debate among experts over whether it reflects a shift in India’s approach toward Iran and the broader Middle East.
Those who view the move as a policy shift point to India’s representation at the 2024 funeral of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, where Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar headed the delegation. Others argue there is no significant change, noting that India was represented by its foreign minister at the funeral of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 rather than by its top leadership.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who led Iran for decades as Supreme Leader, was reportedly killed in a US-Israeli airstrike in Tehran on February 28.
The funeral ceremonies are expected to attract heads of state and senior dignitaries from around the world, highlighting Iran’s geopolitical importance due to its influence on energy markets and the strategic Strait of Hormuz. As Supreme Leader, Khamenei also held a prominent position among Shia Muslims globally.
India and Iran have maintained deep historical, cultural, and strategic connections over the years. Their relationship has included cooperation in energy, the development of the Chabahar Port project as an alternative trade route bypassing Pakistan, and collaboration in international forums.
At the same time, bilateral ties have been shaped by challenges such as sanctions on Iran, regional conflicts, and India’s expanding relationships with Israel and Gulf countries, particularly the UAE.
Questions Over India’s Diplomatic Signal
India’s choice of delegation has generated mixed reactions. Some commentators believe the level of representation does not adequately reflect the significance of India-Iran ties, especially considering the personal invitation extended to the Prime Minister. They have questioned whether New Delhi’s decision was influenced by a desire to avoid straining relations with the United States and Israel.
Lawyer and author Navroop Singh was among those critical of the move, arguing that sending a state governor indicates a downgrading of ties with Tehran. He suggested that a higher-ranking official such as the foreign secretary, minister of state for external affairs, or vice president would have been more appropriate. Singh also argued that India’s decision appeared influenced by concerns about how other countries might interpret its diplomacy.
Strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney drew comparisons with India’s response to President Raisi’s death in 2024. He noted that while the vice president attended Raisi’s funeral, the government has now chosen a lower-level delegation for Khamenei, who served as both Iran’s spiritual leader and head of state. According to Chellaney, this suggests that India’s tilt toward Israel and other countries involved in the Iran conflict remains evident.
He further argued that New Delhi seems intent on avoiding friction with Washington and Tel Aviv while still attempting to acknowledge its longstanding relationship with Iran.
Journalist and author Saba Naqvi also expressed concern, describing the decision as a misjudgment. She noted reports that Pakistan may send its prime minister and argued that Iran’s role in global affairs, particularly regarding oil supplies, makes the country too important for India to distance itself from diplomatically.
Former military officers also weighed in. Retired Colonel Pavan Nair pointed out that the vice president attended the funeral of a foreign president in the past, whereas Khamenei’s funeral, despite being linked to a personal invitation for the Prime Minister, would be attended by a state governor. He viewed this as a sign of India’s alignment with the United States and Israel.
Political commentator and former military officer Pravin Sawhney interpreted the move within the context of India’s broader foreign policy, arguing that New Delhi was missing an opportunity to strengthen ties with Global South countries and emerging international power centres.
Comparisons With 1989
Not all analysts agreed that India’s decision amounted to a diplomatic slight. Policy expert and author Tanvi Madan cautioned against overinterpreting the rank of the delegation. She noted that India did not send its president, vice president, prime minister, or, to her recollection, even the external affairs minister to Khomeini’s funeral in 1989. She also argued that India’s relationship with Iran is often portrayed as closer than it actually is, especially when compared with Iran’s ties to other countries in the region.
One explanation offered is that New Delhi may have viewed the funeral differently because Khamenei occupied a position that combined religious and political authority, rather than serving as an elected political leader. This distinction may have influenced the level of representation chosen.
In 1989, India was represented at Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s funeral by then Foreign Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.
Speaking at the time, Rao described Khomeini as a towering figure whose death would leave a major void and significantly affect Iran’s future.
Observers also note that the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has changed dramatically since then.
Christopher Clary, a political science professor at the University at Albany, remarked that, despite the credentials of the two Indian representatives, the delegation does not project a strong desire for particularly close India-Iran relations.
These differing reactions underscore how diplomatic symbolism can be interpreted in multiple ways.
The Diplomatic Optics
India has traditionally pursued a foreign policy based on strategic autonomy and multi-alignment, maintaining relations with a wide range of partners without entering formal alliances. While international sanctions and regional developments have complicated ties with Iran, cooperation continues in areas such as Chabahar Port and potential energy connectivity projects.
Khamenei’s funeral takes place amid ongoing tensions in West Asia, a region where India has generally sought to maintain balanced relationships while safeguarding its own strategic interests.
Analysts note that representation at state funerals often carries symbolic significance, even though governments typically determine delegations based on a combination of protocol, scheduling considerations, and broader strategic calculations.
India’s delegation includes Pabitra Margherita and Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd), whose diplomatic and military backgrounds are expected to lend strategic significance to the country’s representation.
It is also worth noting that India did not send its prime minister, president, or vice president to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s funeral in 1989.
As the funeral ceremonies draw closer, the discussion highlights the complexities of India’s Middle East policy and the challenge of balancing relationships with Iran, Israel, the United States, Gulf nations, and Global South partners in a rapidly evolving international environment. The debate suggests that diplomatic decisions are rarely driven by a single factor and often reflect a blend of immediate circumstances and long-term strategic priorities.
