Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has weighed in on the ongoing West Asia crisis, offering a nuanced defence of India’s diplomatic restraint and pushing back against critics who have described the government’s silence on the US-Israeli war on Iran as a moral failure, instead terming New Delhi’s approach as “responsible statecraft”.
In an opinion piece published in The Indian Express, Tharoor argued that while the conflict may violate international law, India’s foreign policy must strike a balance between principle and pragmatism, prioritising national interest, regional stability and strategic partnerships over rhetorical condemnation.
“In the last couple of weeks, many Indian liberals have turned their ire inward, accusing those of us who have not condemned the government’s silence on the US-Israeli war against Iran of moral cowardice. In the American phrase, it has become a ‘circular firing squad’ — shooting on ourselves. They want us all to demand that India should have taken the moral high ground, denouncing the war as a flagrant violation of international law,” he wrote.
His remarks come at a time when sections within his own party have criticised the government’s “silence”. Days earlier, Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) Chairperson Sonia Gandhi criticised the Central government’s “silence” regarding the US-Israel attack on Iran. She had stated that the lack of any official statement on this matter is not neutral; rather, it amounts to an “abdication” of responsibility.
In an op-ed published in The Indian Express, titled ‘Government’s silence on killing of Iran leader is not neutral, it is abdication’, Sonia Gandhi said, “The killing of a sitting head of state in the midst of ongoing negotiations marks a grave rupture in contemporary international relations. Yet, beyond the shock of the event, what stands out equally starkly is New Delhi’s silence.”
Interestingly, Tharoor also recalled late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s non-alignment policy to justify the current government’s stance on the conflict in West Asia.
Responding to these criticisms, Tharoor clarified his position, stating, “Let me state clearly: I concur that the war cannot be justified under international law. It violates the very principles India has historically stood for — respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, and peaceful resolution of disputes. Nor, as I have explained earlier, is there a case for pre-emptive self-defence either.”
He said that India “should have promptly issued condolences” on the death of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as it did when its late President was killed in a helicopter crash.
“I am free to say so, and so are my liberal friends in the opposition or the commentariat. But I will not condemn the government for choosing silence over confrontation,” he said.
Recalling India’s long-standing diplomatic tradition, he said the country has historically balanced principle with pragmatism, citing late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s policy of non-alignment.
He noted that it was “not a refusal to take moral positions, but a recognition that India’s sovereignty and survival depended on avoiding entanglement in Cold War hostilities”.
“Today, in an increasingly multipolar world, India practises ‘multi-alignment’ — engaging with diverse powers, sometimes in tension with one another, while keeping our national interest paramount,” he said.
The Congress leader emphasised that India’s core objective has remained unchanged: to protect sovereignty while advocating for global justice.
“No one holds a monopoly over patriotism, nor over the interpretation of the values taught by Gandhi or Nehru. The true tribute to their legacy lies in applying their values wisely to the realities of our time, not in self-gratifying denunciations that could jeopardise our interests,” he said.
He also pointed out that India has, in the past, chosen restraint when principles clashed with strategic interests.
Referring to the country’s stance during Soviet interventions in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979, he said, “That silence did not mean we endorsed Soviet aggression. It meant we understood the costs of confrontation and chose prudence over posturing. Today, the same logic applies to our stand on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli-American assault on Iran.”
Tharoor further highlighted India’s deep stakes in the region, noting that nearly $200 billion in annual trade flows through West Asia, with the country’s energy security heavily dependent on Gulf oil and gas, and the welfare of around nine million Indians in the region tied to stability there.
“To indulge in sanctimonious moralising by condemning the US-Israeli war on Iran would risk destabilising these relationships and jeopardise remittances that sustain millions of Indian households, energy supplies that fuel our economy, and trade ties that underpin our growth,” he said.
“Silence, in this context, is not cowardice. It is a sober recognition of the interconnectedness of our national interests with the realities of the region,” he added.
Commenting on the current US administration under Donald Trump, Tharoor said, “We must also acknowledge the nature of the government in Washington. Today’s United States does not prioritise international law in the way we might wish. President Donald Trump is often willing to lash out at those who obstruct his objectives. While the war violates tenets we stand for, jeopardising the many other strategic interests we have with the US would be unwise.”
Stressing the importance of stable India-US ties, he said defence cooperation, technology partnerships and shared concerns over China’s rise depend on maintaining strong relations with Washington. “To antagonise the US with a moralistic denunciation of its war would risk undermining these vital interests. Loud lecturing combines poorly with low leverage,” he said.
“Foreign policy is, above all, about the protection of sovereignty, the pursuit of prosperity, and the preservation of peace. Our interests are not served by indulging in the gratification of grandstanding — unless we are confident that we can comfortably withstand the consequences. And today, we cannot,” he added.
He further argued that acknowledging geopolitical realities does not amount to submission.
“India has often spoken for global justice in multilateral forums. But we have also known when to hold our tongue. That balance is the essence of responsible statecraft,” he said.
“Silence, in the absence of leverage, can be a strategy. It allows us to preserve our interests while keeping open the possibility of quiet diplomacy. It avoids unnecessary confrontation while preserving the channels of communication with both sides that might permit constructive action in favour of peace,” Tharoor noted.
Taking aim at critics, he wrote, “Indian liberals who demand condemnation of the war mistake moral absolutism for moral courage. They forget that foreign policy is not an academic seminar. It is the arena where principles meet power, and where choices have consequences for millions of lives. To insist on denunciation without regard for consequences is to indulge in the luxury of rhetoric at the expense of responsibility.”
He also invoked the legacies of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, saying, “Yes, Gandhi taught us the power of moral witness. Yes, Nehru spoke of international law as the foundation of peace. But both also understood the imperatives of national interest. Their legacy is not one of rigid dogma, but of wise adaptation.”
Concluding his argument, Tharoor said that the war on Iran is “unjustifiable under international law”, but India’s “silence” is not an endorsement of that war.
“It is a recognition that our national interest requires prudence, not posturing. If I were advising any Indian government, therefore, I too would counsel restraint. Restraint is strength: The strength to balance principle with pragmatism, to honour our values while safeguarding our interests, and to navigate a dangerous world with wisdom rather than bravado.”
“For a government to recognise geopolitical realities and weigh consequences for India’s economy and strategic position before taking a public stand is not ‘moral surrender’. It is responsible statecraft,” he added.
