Modi's Silence On Iran Lost India's Voice In The Middle East

The Ministry of External Affairs eventually expressed“deep concern,” noting that the situation“evokes great anxiety.” But anxiety is not a foreign policy and concern is not a position.

The opposition Indian National Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi captured the stakes:“Silence, in this instance, is not neutral.” She described the posture not as neutrality but as“abdication” and a“grave betrayal” of India's traditional balanced approach.

When the United Nations Charter was violated by an attack on a sovereign state's leader, India-which once championed non-alignment-had nothing to say. That is not the silence of careful diplomacy. It is the silence of a country that has painted itself into a corner.

The most tangible victim may be the Chabahar port, the crown jewel of Indian engagement with Iran. For years, India has cultivated this facility as a strategic asset-a gateway to Central Asia bypassing Pakistan, a counter to China's Gwadar port and a critical node in the International North-South Transport Corridor.

India has invested over one billion dollars in Chabahar, betting that Iran would remain a reliable partner. Today, with Iran viewing India as aligned with its enemies, these projects hang by a thread. Experts warn that in any post-conflict power struggle, Chabahar risks becoming a hostage to instability.

Officials in New Delhi now express concern that any new leadership in Tehran is likely to scrutinize agreements signed with a perceived adversary. Central Asian countries-Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan-are not fools. China's Belt and Road Initiative offers them connectivity without the complications of a hostile Iran.

Russia offers security cooperation. India offers a prime minister who visited Israel on the eve of war and cannot bring himself to utter even a word about Iranian schoolgirl innocents killed by US-Israeli bombs.

The double standard in India's condemnation has been particularly stark. Modi spoke with the UAE's president,“strongly condemned” the attacks on Gulf nations and expressed solidarity with“all measures” the UAE deemed necessary. He called Netanyahu and conveyed India's concerns, calling for an“early cessation of hostilities.”

There was no call to Tehran. No expression of concern for the violation of Iranian sovereignty. No words for the spiritual leader killed in the strike.

This asymmetry has not gone unnoticed. A former Indian ambassador put it bluntly:“PM Modi's visit to Israel was wrongly timed and has completely ripped India off its neutrality. We are seen in the Israeli corner.” Indian National Congress leader Pawan Khera, meanwhile, drew a devastating contrast with history.

In 1994, when Western powers backed a resolution condemning India over Kashmir, Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao dispatched his ailing External Affairs Minister to Tehran. Iran's president blocked the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) move and Pakistan's last serious attempt to internationalize Kashmir collapsed.

“That very 'friend of India' stands betrayed-bartered away to please the same Western powers that once thirsted for our blood,” Khera said.

Modi government defenders have offered a pragmatic defense. A senior official outlined India's core concerns:“Our people in the Gulf, oil trade and broader security interests are at stake. These countries are under attack from Iranian drones and missiles. It's a call we make in our people's interest.”

This is the language of realpolitik, of hard-headed calculation about where India's interests lie. But it begs a deeper question: if India's interests are so clearly aligned with the US-Israel-Gulf axis, why maintain the fiction of strategic autonomy?

The answer lies in the costs that alignment imposes. By choosing sides, India has forfeited its ability to speak to all parties-precisely the capability it needs when nearly ten million citizens are scattered across a war zone. Those channels, once open to Tehran, are now frozen if not severed.

The Modi government has invested heavily in the narrative of India as an“emerging great power.” Reports suggest India is the only great power whose overall influence continues to expand. However, there is a gap between self-perception and the reality of the great power narrative.