If the pusillanimity of the Government of India on the war against Iran by the United States of America and Israel has been quite staggering, the defence of it by several reputed columnists in the print media has been no less so. This pusillanimity of the government has manifested itself at every step, but above all in its not uttering a single word in condemnation of the US-Israeli aggression against an independent and sovereign country for no conceivable reason other than changing its regime. The claim that Iran was developing nuclear weapons lacked substance in the first place and was not confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency; besides, the US had claimed to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in the June 2025 bombings of that country. And in any case, talks between the US and Iran on ensuring peaceful use of Iran’s nuclear energy had reportedly made considerable progress.
Indeed, in view of this progress, so sudden was the attack on Iran that a perception has now developed in certain circles within the US that the American side only pretended to show progress in talks; its real aim was to get the entire leadership of Iran, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to assemble in one place to discuss a purportedly final American offer so that they could all be eliminated at one stroke. The justification for the war on the grounds of Iran being a nuclear threat, quite apart from being devoid of any legal validity (after all, several other countries, including Israel, have nuclear weapons), also lacks substance. The war represents simply a direct and reprehensible attack on Iran’s sovereignty.
The defence offered for the Indian government’s silence on this utterly illegal action is that such silence is ‘in the interests of our nation’. This, however, amounts to taking a petty view of the nation’s interest, equating it with some tariff concession or some arms sale or such like by the US. For a country that was colonised for nearly two centuries and that had waged a prolonged struggle to obtain its freedom, the supreme national interest that overshadows all such petty and banal considerations that focus on ‘getting something from the Americans’ is the preservation of that freedom.
The post-war international order that included the UN system was committed to preserving decolonisation, and the cornerstone of that commitment was respect for each nation’s sovereignty. No big power could arrogate to itself the right to abrogate the sovereignty of any nation, no matter how small, and no matter how oppressive its regime may be internally. Getting rid of any such oppressive regime was a matter for the people of that country, not for big powers from outside, though, in exceptional cases (such as South Africa), the UN could impose sanctions against it.
The sole objective of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, once we ignore the ‘nuclear threat’ argument, was to bring about a ‘regime change’ there. This objective, which the aggressors openly claim, is a direct assault on national sovereignty and, hence, on the very foundations of the post-war order. Regime change in other countries had been effected earlier; but had been done through covert CIA activities, through promoting coups d’etat, never through direct, armed intervention. Not protesting against such intervention opens up the prospects of a reversal of decolonisation, of a recolonisation of the Global South, where only those regimes that are acceptable to the US (and Israel) will be allowed to rule.
This poses a direct threat to the freedom of the Indian people. The attack on Iran is not just some minor local affair. It comes on top of the utterly stupefying thuggery by the US of abducting the head of State of a foreign country, and its attempt at appropriating that country’s oil resources (which are the largest among all countries of the world). Combined also with the act of throwing an armed cordon around Cuba to prevent any oil reaching that island so that its citizens remain without any power supply until a regime change is effected there, it presages a new world order where the Global South would revert, once again, effectively to a colonised status. Of course there would be no viceroys appointed from the White House, but local satraps who rule would be American puppets. For the Indian government to remain silent on this attempt at altering the post-war order is a betrayal of the Indian people, of the people of the Global South, and also of the legacy of India’s anti-colonial struggle. It is far more profoundly against the interest of our nation than interpreting this interest in terms of some crumbs being thrown by the US would suggest. President Lula da Silva of Brazil has underscored these very real concerns that I am alluding to in a speech delivered recently in Colombia. It is in India’s interest to join him in resisting this push for a recolonisation of the Global South.
The National Democratic Alliance government, alas, seems oblivious to all this and is intent on pursuing its pusillanimous course, hoping presumably to get some American crumbs. It may succeed in camouflaging its pusillanimity on this issue, as it was doing earlier on the Indo-US trade deal that was obviously an ‘unequal treaty’ (though, mercifully, it has been deferred for the present). It may even try to market its stand on these issues as triumphs of statesmanship; but the actual results of its pusillanimity are of dangerous consequence for the people. These consequences, too, may be obfuscated through the promotion of a distractive discourse about ‘infiltrators’ and ‘terrorists’; but they cannot be wished away and will come to haunt the Indian people.
Prabhat Patnaik is Professor Emeritus, Centre for Economic Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi