News Arena

Home

Nation

States

International

Politics

Opinion

Economy

Sports

Entertainment

Trending:

Home
/

why-new-delhi-refrained-from-condemning-israel

Opinion

Why New Delhi refrained from condemning Israel

India chose to distance itself from the SCO’s official stance, marking a deliberate silence that reflects its increasingly calibrated diplomacy. Both Iran and Israel are strategic partners for India. Consequently, ties with both nations are not just symbolic but serve vital national interests.

News Arena Network - Chandigarh - UPDATED: June 19, 2025, 12:52 PM - 2 min read

Representational image.


By all accounts, the Middle East today stands on a precarious edge. The region has again been jolted by one of the most dangerous escalations. Israel launched a wave of unprecedented attacks on Iran on early Friday, targeting nuclear and military installations deep within Iranian territory, stretching from Tehran to Isfahan and Shiraz. Iranian authorities reported over 80 fatalities, including civilians, nuclear scientists, and top IRGC commanders. Israeli strikes also devastated oil refineries, power grids, and fuel reserves, crippling critical infrastructure. In retaliation, Iran fired hundreds of missiles and drones towards Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing at least 13 and injuring many more. The tit-for-tat military exchanges have not only deepened regional instability but also derailed nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States.

 

Amid these unfolding crisis, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) of which Iran became a full member in 2023, issued a strong condemnation of Israel accusing it of violating the UN Charter, infringing on Iranian sovereignty, and threatening global peace. Yet, one voice was conspicuously absent from the chorus: India.

 

New Delhi chose to distance itself from the SCO’s official stance, marking a deliberate silence that reflects its increasingly calibrated diplomacy. Rather than endorsing blame, India leaned into its now-familiar posture ‘engagement without entanglement.’

 

Both Iran and Israel are strategic partners for India. Consequently, ties with both nations are not just symbolic but serve vital national interests. India has consistently emphasised it’s “close and friendly relations with both countries,” while also reaffirming its readiness to extend support to peacebuilding efforts in the region.

 

India’s decision is not a lapse of morality, but a product of strategic necessity.

 

Foreign minister S. Jaishankar conveyed to his Iranian counterpart Seyed Abbas Araghchi that India favours “dialogue, diplomacy and de-escalation.” Yet, he stopped short of criticising Israel, a nation with which India maintains robust defence ties. Israel is India’s second largest arms supplier. From precision-guided munitions to cutting-edge surveillance technology, the relationship is vital for India’s security posture.

 

At the same time, Iran remains indispensable to India’s connectivity, energy security and regional influence. The Chabahar Port, co-developed by India, is a crucial trade and strategic corridor linking India to Central Asia and Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan. But India’s relationship with Iran goes far beyond just port engagement. It views Tehran as a major economic partner, and admires Iran’s geographic centrality as a gateway between the Gulf, South Asia and Eurasia.

 

India’s strategic silence is thus not surprising; it is a continuation of a pragmatic diplomatic tradition. As Kabir Taneja of the Observer Research Foundation aptly describes, India is an ‘outlier insider’ within groupings like the SCO. It participates, influences but preserves its sovereign flexibility.

 

Also read: Israel’s ‘nuke excuse’ reminiscent of Iraq’s ‘chemical weapons’

 

India’s decision has consistently signalled that it will not allow any multilateral forum, including the United Nations or the SCO, to dictate its national interest. This was also visible most recently in India’s abstention from the June 2025 UN General Assembly resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. While the resolution received overwhelming support amidst humanitarian concerns. India stood apart, choosing not to alienate Israel or compromise its leverage.

 

This moment also reflects India’s needs to juggle multiple, often competing global partnerships. Publicly siding with Iran could easily jeopardise New Delhi’s ambitions with Washington. At a time when India is negotiating a major trade agreement with Washington and facing threats of 27% tariff on exports, it cannot afford a rupture with its western ally.

 

Moreover, India’s stakes in the Middle East runs deep. The region is home to more than eight million Indian expatriates and remains the primary source of India’s oil imports. A full-scale war between Iran and Israel would not only inflame sectarian tensions across the Gulf, but pose direct economic, political and human consequences for India.

 

India remaining non-partisan is not hesitation, it is a form of diplomatic insulation from bias and influence. India knows that overt alignment with either side in this high-stakes rivalry would diminish its space for manoeuvre in global diplomacy. Critics may lament India’s lack of condemnation, but clarity often comes at the cost of leverage.

 

New Delhi has chosen the difficult path of principled pragmatism, its strategy of restraint may prove its strongest tool, not to pick sides, but to stay in a position to mediate, influence and protect its national interests. 

 

By Shyna Gupta

TOP CATEGORIES

  • Nation

QUICK LINKS

About us Rss FeedSitemapPrivacy PolicyTerms & Condition
logo

2025 News Arena India Pvt Ltd | All rights reserved | The Ideaz Factory