India’s Neutrality and Dual Diplomacy: The Only Deterrent for TheCurrent Geopolitical Scenario
India should prefer neutrality over showcasing tilt towards a certain block, in the current
war happening between Israel and U.S., and Iran.
A confrontation which is termed as the Iran War, fostered in the uncertainties created due to
the difference on the nuclear standpoint between the two countries, escalated in the region
gradually reaching its epitome on February 28, 2026, where the United States and Israel
coordinated an attack via surprise airstrikes on Iran, killing the Supreme Leader Ali Khameini,
leading to a vehement retaliation from Iran, which included missiles, drones and other artillery
used on Israel and US bases, Gulf nations and shipping routes.
In the following circumstances the Indian Government to take a neutral standpoint, which
would encompass showcasing a disregard for the humanitarian catastrophe, urging both the
parties to consider an immediate ceasefire, offering diplomatic assistance if required but
refusing any military support to any of the nations, prioritising national interests, stressing on
protecting Indian citizens, economic interests and a constant flow of energy supplies. This
stance should also attend to the common dilemma reiterating how neutrality doesn’t equate
with passivity, but exists as an independent standpoint showcasing a country’s independent
strategic autonomy in an evolving multipolar world.
This choice is made considering ideals embedded in India’s foreign policy doctrine and the
lessons of various well-versed scholars. Important works like Westad’s International History
of the Twentieth Century and Zanchetta (2016) have highlighted how an alignment with one
of the major superpowers often creates a trap for the smaller states as they engage in continuous
proxy conflicts. As iterated by Charles Tilly, "War made the state and state makes war", which
highlighted how wars encourage states to create institutions that facilitate the war and army.
This will lead to the creation of institutions which in the words of scholars like Acemoglu and
Robinson would be purely extractive in nature, with the singular objective of facilitating the
major conflict (Malkasian, C., 2025; Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J.A., 2012). This will prove to
be counter-productive for a country like India which aims at commanding its own strategic
autonomy and become a potential superpower. Moreover, as Lahiry (2013) and many other
Post-Second World War hegemony scholars have illustrated, how even hegemonic powers
cannot control outcomes without a major regional blowback, evident in the resistance showed by the Iranian Government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the circumstances give all the more impetus to India to refrain from becoming a pawn in the hegemonic project of either of the parties.
India’s stakes in the West Asian region also reflect the requirement of this posture. While above
80% of India’s crude oil needs are managed through imports, with a significant chunk passing
through the Gulf, India requires a functional relationship with Iran in order to have access at
the Strait of Hormuz. Hinnebusch (2022) in his chapter in “Middle East: Oil and Political
Order” explains how petroleum has played a major role in shaping political alignment for
decades.
The ongoing skirmish has already led to a drastic rise in the energy prices, dismantling
significant sea lanes. While taking an American and Israel's side will push India towards facing
an energy blockade at the Strait of Hormuz, aligning with Iran would invite potential secondary
sanctions, which can completely disrupt India’s already hit energy market. As explained by
The Wilson Centre’s piece, namely “Roots of Ten Middle East Conflicts” and the “Foreign
Policy India Analysis of Evolving Power Dynamics” (2025), Oil rich conflicts hardly stay
contained. Neutrality in the following situation will allow India to deal with Saudi Arabia, UAE
and Iraq, while simultaneously diversify through the International North South Transport
Corridor and Chabahar Port, both required to emphasise on India’s own national interests of
bypassing Pakistan while reducing dependency on one single state.
The human paradigm is as concerning as well with over 9 million Indian nationals actively
working in the Middle-East region, with remittances exceedingly more than 50 billion dollars
annually. Any kind of aggravation jeopardises the lives of these citizens, potentially afflicting
our economy as well. While, taking a pro-US and Israeli stand might please some communities,
India’s Muslim communities would retaliate, evident in the protests after the death of Ayatollah
Ali Khomeini. However, a tilt towards the Iranian stance can aggravate tensions within the
majority Hindu population who show support towards the Israelis.
From a Geopolitical perspective, watching China and mirroring the response is tempting, based
on India’s recent pivot towards de-risking with China as Trump Tariffs bothered the Indian
economy, and the partnership in BRICS and SCO. However, the implications can be drastic as
China’s Peaceful rise, as explained by Zheng Bijian (2005), has always been countered by Neo
realist warnings, embedded in Mearsheimer’s pieces of offensive realism and Allison’s
Thucydides Trap discussion (2015). While Beijing has shown its tilt towards Iran, India to take
a stance with a state whose investments in Pakistan, towards the Northern Border and BRI projects have afflicted the security of the Nation would not just be harmful, but counter-
productive towards all the gains made through diplomacy with groupings like the QUAD.
Therefore, while the Chinese stance will have a role to play in India’s decisions, basing it
completely on their decision would be afflicting from a broader perspective. India’s stance of
co-sponsoring an UNSC resolution which criticises Iran’s attack on the Gulf states while
providing a safe harbour to Iranian Vessels stands as a testament to India’s Geopolitical
hedging.
While critics argue that neutrality stands as a reflection of weakness, in a world of a
“compromised Westphalia", as coined by Krasner (1995), this stance is not mere cowardice but
showcases India’s credibility as a major Global South power with an independent viewpoint,
which aligns towards humanitarianism. This also keeps diplomatic channels open to all the
countries, avoiding a nuclear shadow that surrounds the region. With a war that has been
continuing for mere 3 weeks, and Trump’s call towards de-escalation, the uncertainty gallops
the environment, leaving room for a plethora of outcomes, including a broader confrontation
through Irani Proxy outfits, a regime change, or a peaceful settlement. India’s stance provides
it with the opportunity to succumb to any of these outcomes.
Written By: Bhaskar Jha THE INDIAN NETIZENS
Comments