Mood of the nation and national interest

What history tells us is that a sense of pragmatism has always tempered New Delhi’s normative voice — speaking loudly when it cost little and staying quiet when it cost much

- Happymon Jacob

There is something almost reassuring about the predictability of India’s Iran debate. The moment the US-Israel strikes started two weeks ago, the positions fell into prefabricated moulds with the speed of a well-rehearsed orchestra. The Left and the centre condemned New Delhi's silence as moral abdication. Government sympathisers dismissed the criticism as naive value-signalling. The broader strategic community too got divided along its usual fault lines. Thus far, however, the debate has generated more heat than light— that, I guess, is a sign that the most important questions are not being asked. Let us ponder over some here.

Many of us want New Delhi to take a clear and firm diplomatic stance on the war against Iran. This assumes that clarity is a virtue in foreign policy. But, is it? Clarity is good when you have the moral, material and diplomatic power to enforce the position you take. For a country that simply is not in a position to shape the outcome of the war — may I add an unjust war — being waged by the US and Israel against Iran, clarity without intent and intent without leverage is essentially posturing, not principle.

The deeper problem with the ongoing value-based critique of India’s Iran policy is that it is selectively applied. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, with far clearer violations of the UN Charter, with a UNGA resolution passed by 141 countries condemning the aggressor, the political and intellectual consensus in India was broadly sympathetic to New Delhi's decision to abstain, continue buying Russian oil, and decline to name the aggressor. Why? Are Ukrainians the children of a lesser god?