Defending Iran, Defending India

On 28 February, the American-Israeli alliance attacked Iran. India remained silent. When Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed, New Delhi again maintained silence and did not offer condolences for several days. Even when an Iranian vessel was attacked in India’s neighbourhood, there was no visible response. This raises a simple question: what does this silence mean? Is it strategy, or has India come to believe that remaining silent in moments of crisis is the best way to avoid taking a position while trying to keep relations with everyone intact?

The so-called strategic experts and commentators celebrated and justified India’s silence as a strategic approach. And this prompted me to rethink some of the questions I have had in my mind from the start: did we do the right thing by not condemning the killing of Ali Khamenei? Did we really succeed in keeping both parties happy by not condemning the attack on Iran’s sovereignty, and did we really safeguard India’s interests in both the short and long term?

And the answers I have arrived at to these questions are negative. Strategic thinkers and policymakers in India are missing several important lessons from global history: colonisation and decolonisation. They are just too narrow in their definition of strategy and India’s choices. They have argued for and defended India’s ‘strategic silence’ by claiming that condemning the war would advance neither India's interests nor its economy. It does not end the conflict. It risks losing the USA as a strategic partner, and the best choice is to remain silent or speak late to avoid American wrath. In this context, they are not defending a position; rather, they are expressing fear. They are afraid. They have been terrorised, and this silence stems from fear that the American political system may negatively impact the Indian economy and politics.

We can’t deny some truth in these assumptions. But they overlook the most vital aspect of global politics and foreign policy: sovereignty and how its breach harms the futures of Iran, India and global politics. In other words, my argument is that defending Iran would ultimately mean defending India, even if Iran loses this war in the short run. When we are talking about defending Iran, we are not talking about defending Iran’s political system and regime type. That’s not our matter; that has never been ours. As a nation, we have consistently opposed the external overthrow of regimes worldwide. We have relations with all types of regimes; recently, we welcomed a Taliban delegation to visit India in October 2025. Thus, it is clear that whichever type of regime is in power, we never interfered in the regime types of states unless they directly affected our borders and policies, such as the India–Pakistan conflict in 1971 and India’s intervention in East Pakistan.

Thus, defending Iran would not mean that we approve of or reject the political and social system in the states concerned. It does not deny the allegations and reality of women’s condition in Iran and their struggle for equality and dignity. However, if we accept the arguments regarding human rights violations and flawed regime types, we would be giving every powerful state in the world a pretext to intervene in the domestic affairs of any country by claiming that the country has violated human rights or discriminated against various minorities. Any state in the world, including those in South Asia, can easily face these claims and allegations. The United States has regularly described India and its neighbourhood as an unsafe place and advised its citizens not to visit India. Thus, we don’t have an argument in that direction.

However, defending Iran means defending Iran’s right to exist and protecting its sovereignty. Sovereignty is the central pillar in international politics. Without sovereignty, the world becomes a jungle. Without sovereignty, a state is open to the temptations of power and acquisition. The principle of sovereignty generally deters states from using naked force to acquire another state. The powerful nonetheless violate others' sovereignty from time to time, but the value remains important to the majority of states. It protects the ‘weaker’ states against future invasions by the most powerful states. It lays the foundation for diplomacy: if disagreement erupts between two states, they may consider each other sovereign equals and create space for dialogue. It affirms the possibility of survival in a world marked by an unequal distribution of power and wealth. It protects against the constant fear of invasion, looting, destruction, and humiliation. It provides them with hope of living and making a living, no matter whether they are weak or powerful, economically or militarily.

Thus, whether it is small Bhutan in India’s neighbourhood or a smaller island states in the Caribbean, sovereignty gives them the right to exist, to live, to survive, and to be the way they collectively want to be, to be free or at least aspire to be free. Domestically, there is always tension and conflict in every state, and they move from theocracy to democracy and from monarchy to autocracy and dictatorship.

Thus, condemning the acts of violation of international sovereignty by the American attack on Iran, the killing of its supreme leader, and the attack on its ship is not just about defending Iran’s sovereignty and its right to exist but also about defending India’s sovereignty and its right to be free from any external threat. By upholding the principle of sovereignty, India defends its stance against external powers seeking to interfere in South Asia. Defending Iran would also mean defending India’s choices to do business globally on its own terms, not on the dictates of others. It assures not only India but also many other smaller countries that they have hope to survive in this brutal, anarchic world.

Thus, arguing that condemning does not help end the war is completely futile. The question, rather, should be: does condemning help world politics retain some of its sanity despite imbalances in power and resource distribution? The question should be whether condemning an imperialist nation and its imperialist policies is of any use for India and its rise. And the answer is yes. India’s emergence and interactions are based on the principles of sovereignty, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-racism, and non-interference. The act of condemning, especially imperialist wars, is meant not just for current wars and conflicts but also for delegitimising those acts of power, violence, cruelty, and imperialism.

It is not about the present. It is about the future. A future where sovereignty is respected. A world where peaceful coexistence is the norm despite differences in regime types. A world where bullies are not roaming the globe from Latin America to Africa and Asia. In this world, the powerful do not exploit the pretext of human rights violations to loot a country's resources and satisfy their egos and desires. Though we were late in expressing our condolences to Khomeini’s killing, we still have the time to assert our clear position on the matter by clearly condemning the American and Israeli attack on Iran and the violation of the principle of sovereignty. We should not let the bullies decide the fate of our existence and interaction. We should assert our independence, strategic autonomy and influence. Though we should primarily keep the principle of sovereignty in mind, we should also not forget India's dependence on Iran and the Gulf region for gas and oil, as well as the millions in remittances from the region.

Thus, defending Iran would mean defending India. It would be defending India’s sovereignty. It would defend India’s foreign policy principles of the state’s right to live and flourish with respect, to usual business and trade without any external interference.

Pavan Kumar teaches global politics at the School of Global Affairs, Ambedkar University Delhi.

Views expressed are personal