EDITORIAL2: Deliberately misleading policy
Context
Amid multiple conflicts and a shifting global order, the world is not waiting for India to moralise. It is watching to see if India can lead with balance, wisdom, and strategic resolve.
Current trends in Foreign policy
- In an era of relentless media cycles and performative politics, foreign policy is increasingly becoming a battleground for domestic posturing.
- The danger lies not just in what is said, but in how and why it’s said.
- Moral absolutism is deployed selectively, outrage is amplified when convenient, and silence is deafening when facts challenge the preferred narrative.
- The framing of India’s foreign policy as either morally courageous or morally bankrupt ignores diplomacy’s layered complexities.
- Nations do not operate in binaries. They navigate shades of grey, often balancing principle with pragmatism.
- To cast India’s foreign policy as a betrayal of historical moral commitments is not only reductionist, it is deeply dishonest.
India’s stand on global attacks
- India, as a long-standing victim of terrorism, rightly condemned the Hamas attack on Israel as an act of terror—reflecting its consistent and principled stance against such violence.
- In such cases, moral clarity is essential; hesitation is not nuance, but evasion.
- At the same time, it made clear its support for the Palestinian people — urging humanitarian access to Gaza, calling for the release of hostages, and providing over 65 tonnes of aid.
- Let us not forget: Diplomacy is not Twitter. It is not built for viral outrage. It is about safeguarding interests while promoting peace.
- Condemning terrorism while extending humanitarian support is not a contradiction — it is coherence.
India’s Realist Foreign Policy in West Asia
- What often passes for foreign policy critique today is often a deliberate misreading of strategic imperatives, particularly regarding Iran, Israel, and West Asia.
- Critics often portray Iran as a misunderstood actor, ignoring serious concerns over its nuclear programme.
- The IAEA has reported Iran holds over 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium, close to weapons-grade, and has found traces of uranium at undeclared sites—yet Iran blocks full transparency.
- Comparing this with Israel’s alleged nuclear capability is misleading. Israel never signed the NPT but has not violated IAEA safeguards; Iran is a signatory and repeatedly non-compliant.
- Some romanticise India-Iran ties by citing Tehran’s 1994 support at the UNHRC on Kashmir, ignoring Iran's current alignment with the OIC, which routinely criticises India. Tehran has echoed calls for restoring rights in J&K, positions India finds problematic.
- Even the Chabahar Port’s development—often cited as a gesture of goodwill—depended. heavily on Indian diplomacy with the U.S. for sanctions waivers
- India’s ties with Iran remain cautious and transactional, based on oil, connectivity, and regional balance—not sentiment.
- India’s ties with Israel, established under P.V. Narasimha Rao, reflect strategic foresight, not betrayal of historical commitments.
- These ties have since matured significantly. Critics of India’s response to the Iran-Israel
- Publicly taking sides in such a volatile conflict would be reckless. India’s foreign policy is grounded in geography, security, and realism.
- In a region fraught with nuclear threats and economic dependencies, pragmatism is not weakness—it is survival.
Conclusion
Foreign policy is not the arena for point-scoring. It demands strategic consistency, institutional memory, and national coherence. What India needs today is clarity without chaos, values without vanity, and vision without vendetta.