Senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has criticised the Centre for not issuing a direct statement on the reported killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that silence in such a situation amounts to an “abdication” rather than neutrality.
In a column published in media, Gandhi argued that India’s relationship with Tehran is rooted in both civilisational and strategic interests and said the government should have responded more clearly to the development.
Centre calls for restraint, avoids direct comment
While the government has not issued a specific statement on Khamenei’s death, it has urged restraint and de-escalation in the Middle East. Sources have indicated that India’s calibrated response is in line with that of major global powers and reflects a diplomatic approach guided by national interest.
Gandhi, however, questioned this position. Referring to Iran’s confirmation on March 1 that Khamenei was assassinated in targeted strikes allegedly carried out by the United States and Israel, she described the episode as a “grave rupture” in international relations, particularly as it occurred during ongoing negotiations.
She also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for initially condemning Iran’s retaliatory strike on the UAE without addressing what she called the preceding US-Israeli actions. Later remarks expressing “deep concern” and advocating dialogue and diplomacy, she suggested, did not sufficiently acknowledge the broader context.
Questions over foreign policy direction
According to Gandhi, failing to clearly defend sovereignty and international law in the face of such an incident could weaken India’s credibility on the global stage. She argued that if the targeted killing of a foreign leader during a diplomatic process passes without principled objection, it risks normalising the erosion of international norms.
She further noted that the timing of the episode — shortly after the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel, where he reiterated support for the government led by Benjamin Netanyahu — adds to the unease, especially amid ongoing global criticism over civilian casualties in Gaza.
Kashmir reference and strategic ties
Gandhi also invoked a past diplomatic episode related to Kashmir. She recalled that in 1994, when sections within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation sought to advance a resolution against India at the UN Commission on Human Rights over Kashmir, Iran played a significant role in blocking the move. According to her, that intervention helped prevent the internationalisation of the issue at a sensitive time for India.
She further pointed to Iran’s role in facilitating India’s diplomatic presence in Zahedan, near the Pakistan border, describing it as strategically relevant in the context of the development of Gwadar port and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
Gandhi also referred to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s 2001 visit to Tehran, during which he had reaffirmed India’s longstanding ties with Iran.
Balancing ties in West Asia
Acknowledging that India’s relations with Israel have expanded in recent years across defence, agriculture and technology, Gandhi said that New Delhi’s ability to maintain ties with both Tehran and Tel Aviv gives it diplomatic space to urge restraint. However, she added, such space depends on credibility and a perception of principled engagement.
Highlighting the presence of nearly 10 million Indians in the Gulf region, she argued that India’s ability to safeguard its citizens during past crises — including conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen — has depended on being viewed as an independent actor.
For a country that aspires to represent the Global South, Gandhi said, perceptions matter. Invoking the principle of “vasudhaiva kutumbakam”, she maintained that India’s civilisational ethos calls for justice, restraint and dialogue, especially at a time when the rules-based international order is under strain.