Why Has Modi Govt Not Condemned Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Assassination?

Last Updated:March 03, 2026, 16:17 IST

The opposition has demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government issue a formal condolence statement on Khamenei's assassination.

The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on March 1, 2026, has now triggered a deeply political debate at home.

The opposition has demanded that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government issue a formal condolence statement. No less than Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has written an article accusing the government of picking a side.

Critics of the opposition argue that when Muammar Gaddafi was killed in 2011 during a NATO-backed operation, the UPA government did not issue any high-profile political mourning statement. India had strong ties with Libya then; seven ministers, including former External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, had visited Tripoli between 2004 and 2007. Yet there was no moral grandstanding, no domestic political storm.

The same question is being raised about the execution of Saddam Hussein in 2006. There was no categorical condolence statement. The UPA was in power then as well.

Also, a priority for India is the safety of over 8 million Indians living in the Middle East. PM Narendra Modi has been on the phone lines with various top leaders in the Gulf, impressing upon them the priority of keeping Indians safe. Strikes by Iran on civilian infrastructure in the Middle East impact the safety of Indians living in the region too. That is why India has condemned these actions by Iran.

Supporters of the government argue that global reactions to Khamenei’s death were largely muted. With the exception of a handful of nations — Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, North Korea and a few others — most major democratic powers did not issue formal condolences. The US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia and even several Gulf states either remained silent or maintained a critical posture. Of the 57 OIC member states, fewer than ten formally condoled his passing.

Equally relevant is Khamenei’s own record vis-à-vis India. Between 2017 and 2024, he publicly commented on India’s internal matters multiple times — on Kashmir, on Article 370, on the Delhi riots and on the Citizenship Amendment Act. Each time, India summoned the Iranian envoy, calling the remarks “misinformed" or “unacceptable."

In March 2020, during the Delhi riots, Khamenei tweeted that India should “confront extremist Hindus" and warned of isolation from the “world of Islam." In 2019, after Article 370 was revoked, he urged India to adopt what he called a “just policy" on Kashmir. In September 2024, he placed India alongside Gaza and Myanmar in a widely viewed social media post.

These were not neutral comments. They were seen in New Delhi as interference in sovereign affairs.

Foreign policy practitioners argue that diplomacy cannot be selective. If a leader repeatedly intervenes in India’s domestic debates, public silence at the time of his death is not extraordinary — it may simply be strategic restraint.

It shows a clear pattern: governments across political lines have often chosen pragmatism over performative diplomacy.

In geopolitics, silence is sometimes not an absence of policy. It is policy. India seems to be following the same approach.

News india Why Has Modi Govt Not Condemned Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Assassination?

Read More