In New Delhi, on March 3, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi strongly criticized India's apparent silence regarding the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Several leaders and experts believe this criticism is unfounded.
While the Middle East is experiencing a major conflict triggered by US-Israeli actions, the opposition in India is questioning India's approach to the situation in the Middle East.
The Congress and the INDIA bloc have criticized the government's stance, particularly regarding Iran. Sonia Gandhi has specifically criticized India's alleged silence regarding Khamenei's assassination. This has led to strong responses from the BJP, which has pointed to past instances where the Congress-led government prioritized its own interests over supporting authoritarian regimes like Ayatollah and Gaddafi (Libya).
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East is expected to have a significant impact on economies worldwide, particularly in countries like India, which relies on Iran for energy. However, experts believe that India's actions are driven by its "national interests," rather than external factors.
Experts and political observers believe that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has acted with "utmost caution" and has prioritized national interests.
Others have stated, "India has decided when and how to act. It will do so based on its assessment of national interest, regional stability, and the safety of its citizens. This is not silence; it is statecraft."
Earlier in the day, Sonia Gandhi criticized the government for taking a side, specifically mentioning that the government refrained from condemning Khamenei's assassination or Iran's violation of Iranian sovereignty. She also criticized Prime Minister Modi for only condemning Iran's retaliatory strike on the UAE, without addressing the events that preceded it.
However, experts have cited instances where Congress-led governments maintained a neutral stance or supported global forces while distancing themselves from oppressive regimes, including those led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
During the UPA government led by the Congress, India voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, 2006, and 2009. This vote aligned with Western powers during negotiations over the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement. At that time, there was no hesitation in prioritizing what is now considered a civilizational relationship.
In 2011, when Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was killed during the uprising, the UPA government neither issued a formal condolence nor launched any strong condemnation.
"In 2011, when Gaddafi was killed fleeing a NATO bomb strike, the UPA government said nothing. India had strong ties with Libya then, with seven ministers, including Pranab Mukherjee, visiting the country between 2004 and 2007. Was the UPA wrong then, or is the Modi government wrong now?" questioned one analyst.
The BJP has responded to Congress, stating that the party must refrain from "lecturing on moral responsibility" and that selective memory cannot be the basis for selective outrage.
Moreover, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's repeated attempts to intervene in India's national affairs explain New Delhi's stance and weaken the opposition's criticism.
Over the years, Khamenei has spoken on India's internal affairs, seeking to build an opinion against India and isolate it globally.
He has amplified propaganda regarding the Delhi riots, attempting to portray them as a one-sided massacre while ignoring documented violence against Hindus. He has also compared India to Gaza, which is a highly inflammatory analogy designed to provoke Muslim nations and isolate India diplomatically.
In 2017, he called upon the Muslim world to mobilize support for what he termed the "oppressed Muslims of Kashmir." He also spoke about Article 370 and the CAA. Despite these repeated intrusions, India did not indulge in retaliatory rhetoric. It maintained diplomatic composure and engagement.
Even after the horrific 2008 Mumbai attacks, India had reason to be disappointed with Tehran's response. Contemporary reporting indicated that sections of Iranian media commentary appeared sympathetic to Pakistan, and an Iranian official reportedly avoided explicitly acknowledging that the terrorists came from Pakistani soil, instead describing Pakistan itself as a victim of terrorism.
On the other hand, even as hostilities in the Middle East continue, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken to Israeli PM and Gulf counterparts in the Middle East and expressed solidarity while calling for an end to armed confrontation and pursuing dialogue as the way forward.
"Besides political bickering, one thing that holds water is that India's foreign policy has been guided by the national interest, as much as during previous administrations. Therefore, the rhetoric and propaganda about India's diplomatic stand with regard to Iran is nothing more than politics and political maneuvering," another expert highlighted.