Since late February, New Delhi has been practicing a certain kind of silence that conveys more than any press conference could. Much of the world anticipated that India would respond in the same way it had in the past, using that well-known moral language about moderation and the suffering of common people, when American and Israeli missiles started to fall on Iran. Rather, nothing showed up. No condemnation. After the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, there was not even a standard note of condolence for days. It’s difficult to ignore the intentionality of that emptiness.
Technically, India did say things. It demanded conversation. It backed a resolution denouncing Iranian attacks on Gulf nations. It worried, loudly and repeatedly, about the safety of its workers and the tankers crawling out of Hormuz carrying LPG and crude. But the thing it would not say, the unprovoked strike by two of its own strategic partners, sat untouched in the middle of every statement like a chair nobody would sit in. Watching this unfold, you start to suspect the omission was the message.
Think about the timing, which continues to annoy me. Modi stood in the Knesset on 25 February, told Israel that India stood firmly by its side, collected his agreements and his welcome, and flew home. Roughly thirty-six hours later, the bombing started. Perhaps he was ignorant. Perhaps the intelligence just didn’t exist, which would be embarrassing in and of itself. In any case, the optics were harsh, and these days, the majority of diplomacy is based on optics.
The time that ought to have compelled India to act then arrived. An American submarine torpedoed and sank the Iranian warship that had entered Visakhapatnam for the MILAN naval exercise while it was returning to the Indian Ocean. When a guest is killed while leaving a party in India, the host does nothing to confront the friend who fired. Regret was not mentioned in the Navy’s statement. The silence was practically a confession for a nation that had insisted for years that it provided these waters’ security.
So why take it all in? The truth is that India has too little leverage and too much to lose. Energy lifelines, ten million people, a Chabahar project two decades in the making, and a relationship with Washington it cannot afford to rupture. History is another. The warmth was never equal as Tehran denounced India for the riots in Delhi and Kashmir. It was obvious that some in New Delhi had no desire to stand up for a friend who had seldom repaid the favor.
And yet. While Brazil, China, and Russia all condemned the war, India, the BRICS president, remained silent, making the silence against its multipolar speeches even more pronounced. This could be cunning realism, the cold math of a rising power choosing its conflicts. Another possibility is that it’s more akin to dependence dressed up as autonomy. The distinction between quiet surrender and strategic patience is more hazy than New Delhi would like to acknowledge, and at the moment, no one—possibly not even India—seems to be totally certain of Modi’s position.
