Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has stirred a fresh debate within political circles by defending India’s restrained response to the ongoing US-Israel conflict with Iran, calling it a case of “responsible statecraft” rather than moral failure.
In a strongly argued opinion, Tharoor said that while the conflict raises serious concerns under international law, India cannot afford to react purely on emotion or ideology. He stressed that foreign policy decisions must balance moral values with practical realities, especially when national interests are at stake.
His remarks come amid criticism from within his own party, particularly from Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, who had earlier questioned the Centre’s silence and termed it a failure to take responsibility on a major global issue. However, Tharoor offered a different perspective, suggesting that silence in diplomacy does not necessarily mean approval.
He made it clear that he does not support the war, stating that such conflicts go against principles like sovereignty and peaceful resolution. At the same time, he argued that openly condemning powerful nations like the United States or Israel could harm India’s strategic and economic interests.
Referring to India’s long-standing diplomatic approach, Tharoor invoked the legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru, explaining that non-alignment was never about avoiding moral positions, but about safeguarding national interests in a complex global environment. He said that today’s world requires a similar approach of “multi-alignment,” where India engages with multiple global powers without getting trapped in conflicts.
Tharoor also highlighted India’s deep stakes in West Asia, noting that the region is crucial for energy supplies, trade routes, and the livelihood of millions of Indians working there. Any aggressive diplomatic stance, he warned, could risk these vital connections and create economic instability back home.
He further pointed out that India has historically chosen restraint during major global crises, including past geopolitical conflicts, without compromising its core values. According to him, such decisions were guided by practicality rather than weakness.
Taking a subtle dig at critics, Tharoor said that demanding loud condemnation without considering consequences reflects “rhetoric over responsibility.” He argued that foreign policy is not about making statements for moral satisfaction, but about protecting national interests and ensuring long-term stability.
He also noted that maintaining stable relations with countries like the United States remains crucial for India, especially in areas such as defence cooperation, technology partnerships, and managing global power dynamics.
Concluding his remarks, Tharoor emphasised that restraint should not be mistaken for weakness. Instead, he described it as a calculated and mature approach that allows India to navigate a complex and volatile world while keeping its strategic interests intact.
