In this analysis, author Reza Assadi explores the troubling silence of India, the current chair of BRICS, regarding the ongoing Iran war. While India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed significant diplomatic events, such as his Knesset speech prior to military strikes, India’s reactions have raised eyebrows, particularly after supporting UN Security Council Resolution 2817, which condemned Iran. With India’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visiting New Delhi on May 14, Assadi delves into what this means for India’s international standing and strategic position amidst the complex geopolitical landscape.
By Reza Assadi, a writer on the geopolitics of the post-unipolar world, with a focus on Iran and the multipolar transition. He is also the founder of an AI company aimed at bridging the trust gap and writes about the impact of AI on sovereignty and power dynamics. His work can be found at his Substack
In late April, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi traveled to Pakistan, Oman, and Russia. He arrived in Islamabad on April 24 and had discussions with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who had recently spoken with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Following this, he visited Muscat for talks with Sultan Haitham before returning to Islamabad on April 26 for further discussions, which included meetings with Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir. He then headed to St. Petersburg to confer with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
On May 6, Araghchi was in Beijing conversing with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Throughout these high-level discussions involving Russia, Iran, China, and Pakistan, another BRICS member reliant on the Strait of Hormuz for the bulk of its liquefied petroleum gas and crude oil was excluded from these dialogues. Since the onset of the war, India has maintained a perplexing silence on crucial matters.
The upcoming BRICS foreign ministers meeting in Delhi on May 14 offers India the chance to engage. To comprehend the implications of India’s silence, it’s essential to revisit recent events.
On February 26, just 36 hours before the first strikes on Tehran, Modi addressed the Knesset, declaring India’s firm support for Israel. He was awarded the Speaker of the Knesset Medal, marking a new level in bilateral relations. The two nations announced a Special Strategic Partnership, including 27 significant outcomes like a Critical and Emerging Technologies partnership and a joint defense production memorandum reinforced until November 2025.
Operation Epic Fury commenced just 36 hours post his return to Delhi, resulting in the tragic loss of 156 lives, including 120 children, in a double-tap attack on the first day. India notably refrained from issuing any statement regarding the Minab school tragedy. When questioned, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) offered a vague comment about the need to ensure “the safety of all civilians,” which gave little comfort in light of the scale of civilian casualties.
The MEA’s response worsened, as on March 3, directives were sent to Indian missions abroad preventing them from signing condolence books for Khamenei without prior approval from New Delhi. At that moment, India was the only major power sidelining standard diplomatic expressions of sympathy toward a war-torn country.
Iran sought refuge from Sri Lanka on February 26 and India on February 28, the day the war erupted. Sri Lanka, citing Hague Convention concerns, denied port access to war-affiliated vessels; however, India, as stated by Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, agreed to open Kochi on March 1. On March 4, the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena was tragically sunk by a U.S. submarine off Sri Lanka’s coast, returning from India’s MILAN-26 exercise held in Visakhapatnam.
Iran’s ambassador highlighted that participating vessels were unarmed under exercise protocols, leading to the fate of 104 sailors, most of whom either perished or remain missing. In contrast, Sri Lanka’s quick response came within two hours; the first Indian aircraft arrived three hours later, and an Indian vessel took 11 hours.
The details of the events between March 1 and March 4 remain unclear, as the frigate could have reached Kochi in under 24 hours yet diverged in its course. Commander Abuzar Zarri, the surviving captain, insisted two torpedoes were fired at 90-minute intervals, with the second hitting when the crew was on deck for evacuation, potentially constituting a war crime.
The Indian Navy’s subsequent communications were termed “carefully worded,” focusing solely on humanitarian efforts without addressing the circumstances surrounding the sinking. After four days of silence, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri eventually signed the book at the Iranian embassy, with an overtly minimalistic message that was reiterated for other embassies only a few days later.
On March 11, India co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2817, condemning Iran’s activities explicitly while demanding a halt to its attacks on multiple nations, without acknowledging the United States or Israel, nor addressing the events that initiated the conflict.
President Droupadi Murmu has not publicly engaged with the situation despite previous counterparts addressing major conflicts. Notably, the Prime Minister has emphasized issues such as energy security while remaining reticent about the ongoing war and its implications for the Strait of Hormuz.
The Silence from India’s Voice
India’s typically vocal stance on its strategic autonomy has gone silent amidst these global tensions.
In June 2022, shortly after the Ukraine conflict commenced, Foreign Minister Jaishankar articulated at the GLOBSEC Bratislava Forum that Europe must evolve beyond the notion that its issues are synonymous with global ones. This sentiment resonated strongly and became a touchstone for India’s diplomatic voice.
India was able to maintain a strategically autonomous position with limited exposure to the Ukraine conflict. However, the landscape shifted as the Iran war emerged, exposing India more significantly due to its reliance on imports that traverse the Strait of Hormuz, impacting its energy security and agricultural sectors substantially.
Jaishankar’s March 9 statement reaffirmed that India’s primary focus is securing its energy needs, lacking any clear stance on the conflict. Subsequent communications echoed similar generalities without outlining a proactive resolution strategy. These actions suggest India seems to sidestep leadership opportunities, even dismissing Pakistan’s potential mediator role rather disparagingly.
What has altered in India’s approach? Where has the voice advocating for India’s interests and the broader global community gone?
Initially, the consequences of India’s comments toward Europe were negligible. Now, however, as geopolitical tensions escalate, India’s silence seems to signify a realignment where it foresees a hierarchy favoring powers like the U.S. and Israel.
The BRICS Dynamics
As India chairs BRICS, the implications of its silence become even more pronounced. Iran, a member of BRICS, has witnessed attacks affecting its interests, while other member nations vocalize support against U.S. aggression. Brazil and South Africa, another BRICS member, swiftly condemned the actions towards Iran, contrasting India’s stance.
On March 21, Pezeshkian reached out to Modi, urging India to use its chairing role to advocate for peace between nations. The subsequent omission of this appeal from Modi’s public statement raised eyebrows. Similarly, India failed to garner consensus during the recent BRICS-MENA deputy foreign ministers’ meeting.
The May 14-15 BRICS Foreign Ministers’ meeting in New Delhi will serve as a critical test of India’s leadership during this tumultuous period in international relations.
As the silent chair of BRICS, India now faces considerable economic challenges, including the looming fertilizer crisis that could adversely affect agricultural productivity. Iran’s diplomatic maneuvers are indicative of what BRICS was intended to achieve—promoting peace and representing the global majority. In stark contrast, India has maintained its silence. The focus on the potential of BRI(ran)CS now seems warranted.
From Strategic Autonomy to Strategic Alignment
India has shifted from a clear stance of strategic autonomy to what appears to be a strategic alignment influenced by U.S. sanctions. The ongoing geopolitical dynamics have resulted in India navigating under external pressures, particularly with U.S. tariffs affecting its oil imports.
While India’s procurement of Russian oil initially seemed stable, external pressures have led to compliance with the U.S. sanctions framework, ultimately compromising its autonomy.
The expiration of the Chabahar sanctions waiver has further complicated India’s commitments in the region, as it faces pressure to yield its investments under U.S. influence. As the dialogue around reconstruction efforts intensifies among global powers, India’s exclusion from these discussions raises questions regarding its strategic direction.
With the upcoming BRICS meeting on May 14-15, India has an opportunity to reclaim its role as a proactive leader; however, its current trajectory suggests a decisive shift in its approach to international relations.
