In a scathing criticism of the Modi government, Congress Parliamentary Party president Sonia Gandhi on Tuesday said its silence on the targeted assassination of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not neutral but an abdication, and raises serious questions about the direction and credibility of India’s foreign policy.
The former Congress president also demanded that when Parliament meets again for the second part of the Budget session, the government’s “disturbing silence” on the breakdown of international order must be debated openly and without evasions.
In his article published in The Indian Express, Gandhi said there is an urgent need to “rediscover” moral strength and articulate it with clarity and commitment.
“On March 1, Iran confirmed that its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, had been killed in targeted strikes carried out the previous day by the United States and Israel. The assassination of a sitting head of state amid ongoing negotiations marks a serious rupture in contemporary international relations,” Gandhi said.
However, beyond the shock of the event, what stands out equally clearly is New Delhi’s silence, he said.
The Government of India has refrained from condemning the assassination or violation of Iranian sovereignty, he noted.
‘At first, ignoring the massive attack by the US and Israel, the Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) simply condemned Iran’s retaliatory attack on the UAE without addressing the sequence of events that preceded it. Later, he uttered platitudes about his ‘deep concern’ and spoke of ‘dialogue and diplomacy’, which is precisely what was underway before the massive unprovoked attacks launched by Israel and the United States,” Gandhi said.
“When the targeted assassination of a foreign leader does not result in a clear defense of sovereignty or international law by our country and impartiality is abandoned, serious questions arise about the direction and credibility of our foreign policy,” Gandhi said in his article.
Silence, in this case, is not neutral, he stated.
Gandhi noted that the assassination was carried out without a formal declaration of war and during an ongoing diplomatic process.
“Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. A targeted assassination of a serving head of State strikes at the heart of these principles,” he said.
If such acts are approved without principled objections by the world’s largest democracy, the erosion of international norms becomes easier to normalize, he argued.
“The concern is compounded by the moment. Just 48 hours before the assassination, the Prime Minister returned from a visit to Israel, where he reiterated his unequivocal support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, even as the Gaza conflict continues to provoke global outrage over the scale of civilian casualties, many of them women and children,” Gandhi said.
At a time when much of the Global South, along with major powers and India’s BRICS partners such as Russia and China, have kept their distance, India’s high-profile political endorsement without moral clarity marks a visible and worrying move away, he said.
“The consequences of this event extend beyond geopolitics. The repercussions of this tragedy are visible on every continent. And India’s stance indicates a tacit endorsement of this tragedy,” he said.
Gandhi noted that the Congress has unequivocally condemned the bombings and targeted killings on Iranian soil, describing it as a dangerous escalation with serious regional and global consequences.
“We have extended our condolences to the Iranian people and Shia communities around the world, reiterating that India’s foreign policy is anchored in the peaceful settlement of disputes, as reflected in Article 51 of the Indian Constitution. These principles ‘sovereign equality, non-intervention and promotion of peace’ have historically been an integral part of India’s diplomatic identity. Therefore, the current reticence seems not only tactical but discordant with our stated principles,” he said.
The present government would do well to remember that in April 2001, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, during an official visit to Tehran, warmly reaffirmed India’s deep ties with Iran, both civilizational and contemporary, Gandhi said.
“His (Vajpayee’s) recognition of those long-standing relationships appears to have no relevance to our current government,” he said.
Noting that India’s ties with Israel have expanded in recent years across defence, agriculture and technology, the Congress leader said it is precisely because India maintains relations with both Tehran and Tel Aviv that it has diplomatic space to urge restraint.
“But that space depends on credibility. Credibility, in turn, is based on the perception that India speaks from principles and not convenience.
“This is not simply a moral proposition; it is a strategic necessity. Nearly 10 million Indians live and work across the Gulf. In past crises – from the Gulf War to Yemen, Iraq and Syria – India’s ability to safeguard its citizens has relied on its credibility as an independent actor, not as a proxy,” he argued.
He further asked why countries in the Global South should trust India to defend their territorial integrity tomorrow if today it seems hesitant to uphold that principle.
“The proper forum to resolve this dissonance is Parliament. When it meets again, this disturbing silence on the breakdown of international order must be debated openly and without evasions,” Gandhi said.
The targeted assassination of a foreign head of state, the erosion of international norms and growing instability in West Asia are not peripheral issues; They directly affect India’s strategic interests and moral commitments, he said.
“There is a need for a clear articulation of India’s position. Democratic accountability demands no less, and strategic clarity requires it,” Gandhi said.
“India has long invoked the ideal of vasudhaiva kutumbakam: the world is one family. That ethos of civilization is not a slogan for ceremonial diplomacy; it implies a commitment to justice, moderation and dialogue, even when doing so is inconvenient.
– Finish
