Has India chosen a side in US-Israel's war with Iran?

For decades, India's stance of maintaining parallel relations with conflicting countries like Israel and Iran and the Gulf nations has been the hallmark of its Middle East foreign policy. However, the policy now faces its acid test after the US and Israel ganged up and struck Iran, which retaliated by raining missiles on Tel Aviv as well as Gulf countries. Now, with two of its strategic partners locked in a direct conflict, can India not help but choose a side?

The initial signalling from India following the conflict seems to have unravelled its decades-long balancing act. India has not explicitly condemned the US-Israel strikes on Iran. It has also not expressed solidarity with Tehran over the breach of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, two factors that India repeatedly endorses. India has also maintained a conspicuous silence following the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. In such circumstances, silence does not signal neutrality.

HAS INDIA CHOSEN A SIDE IN ISRAEL-IRAN WAR?

This silence, coming on the back of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's much-touted Israel visit, has been read by experts as a clear signal that India has chosen a side.

It is a quiet departure from India's long-standing approach that included engaging all sides and protecting national interests first. After all, over nine million Indians work in the Gulf region, and New Delhi is heavily reliant on oil imports.

"PM Modi's visit to Israel was wrongly timed and has completely ripped India off its neutrality on the subject," former Indian ambassador KC Singh said in an interview with India Today. "There's nothing we can do about it now. We are seen in the Israeli corner," he further said.

TWO CALLS, TWO NARRATIVES

At the core of India's stand in the war between US-Israel and Iran is two phone calls by PM Modi. On Sunday night, PM Modi spoke with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan as Iranian missiles rained on the Gulf nation, damaging some of the most iconic buildings and the Dubai and Abu Dhabi airports.

On Monday, PM Modi held a conversation with his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu. PM Modi also posted about his conversations in English as well as in Arabic and Hebrew. There was no engagement with Iran, a key strategic partner and where India has invested heavily to develop the Chabahar port, seen as Delhi's gateway to Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan.

In his call with the UAE President, whom he referred to as his "brother", PM Modi "strongly condemned" the attacks and condoled the loss of lives. However, the Prime Minister stopped short of naming Iran. The remarks were India's first official condemnation of any side in the conflict, which has already left over 700 dead.

Interestingly, the UAE statement on PM Modi's phone call had stronger language. It suggested PM Modi backed whatever steps the UAE deemed necessary in response.

"During the call, the Indian Prime Minister... expressed India's solidarity with the UAE in all measures it takes to safeguard its sovereignty, protect its security, and ensure the safety of its people," the statement said.

In his call with Netanyahu, PM Modi conveyed India's concerns over the developments and called for "early cessation of hostilities".

Under PM Modi, India-Israel ties have received a fillip, with Tel Aviv ranking among New Delhi's top defence and technology partners. India also accounts for over 38% of Israeli arms exports.

If one reads between the lines, India's stand is crystal clear. Its cautious wording is in contrast to earlier crises, like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where India sought to balance ties across rival camps.

"Although India has not taken any side in the war publicly, India's national interests definitely lie more with the US-Israel and their allies. Thus, a tilt towards them is becoming obvious," tweeted former Indian Army chief Ved Malik.

OPPOSITION CRIES BETRAYAL OF IRAN

However, India's silent strategic bet has come under loud criticism from the opposition.

Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera called it India's "betrayal" of Iran, while Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of "moral cowardice" and letting Tehran down.

The sharpest criticism came from Congress MP Sonia Gandhi, who questioned the government's silence over the assassination of Khamenei, calling it an "abdication" rather than neutrality. In an op-ed in The Indian Express, Gandhi said it signalled "tacit endorsement" of the tragedy.

"Silence, in this instance, is not neutral. The assassination was carried out without a formal declaration of war and during an ongoing diplomatic process," Gandhi wrote.

However, it must be remembered that Khamenei's killing has invited lukewarm response from Muslim-majority nations as well. Of the 57 Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) members, fewer than 10 condoled the Supreme Leader's death.

So far, India's response has been calibrated. In public, its messaging has been urging restraint and maintaining peace and stability. However, behind the scenes, India has been silent on Iran and the killing of its Supreme Leader. There has been no pretence of non-alignment. It now remains to be seen whether this strategic bet proves wise.

- Ends