Former Congress President Sonia Gandhi, in a signed article titled “It is still not too late for India’s voice to be heard,” launched a sharp critique of the Modi Government’s silence on Israel’s June 13, 2025, strike on Iran. Describing the operation as “deeply troubling and unlawful,” Sonia Gandhi also condemned what she described as Israel’s “brutal and disproportionate” campaign in Gaza. She argued that by not speaking out, New Delhi had turned its back on India’s long-held moral and diplomatic principles — especially its historic support for a peaceful two-state solution in West Asia.
Mysterious Silence
To strengthen her argument, Sonia Gandhi cited instances of Iran’s past support for India, including Tehran’s role in blocking a 1994 UN resolution on Kashmir that was critical of India. She contrasted the Islamic Republic of Iran’s post-Islamic Revolution approach, which she argued has often been more cooperative with India, with the pre-revolution monarchy, which had leaned towards Pakistan during the 1965 and 1971 wars. However, Sonia Gandhi made no mention of Iran’s recent position on Article 370, or its calculated rhetoric regarding the Muslim population in the Kashmir Valley — a silence that critics say reflects selective framing. To understand the context behind Congress’s argument, one must first revisit the broader trajectory of India–Iran relations—rooted in history but reshaped by revolution.
Historic Bonds, Strategic Shifts
India and Iran share deep and ancient civilisational ties with a strong historical foundation. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution brought about significant changes in Iran’s internal and external policies, which have placed some limitations on its relationship with India. While the cultural and civilisational bonds remain intact, Iran’s identity and policies as an Islamic republic have undeniably added complexity to these relations. Navigating these challenges, India has pragmatically prioritised economic and strategic cooperation—most notably in energy and infrastructure, including the Chabahar Port.From the Congress’s perspective, these historic ties — especially in areas like energy cooperation and the Chabahar Port — necessitate a values-driven foreign policy.
However, critics argue that Congress often uses foreign policy, like Sonia Gandhi’s comments on Gaza and Iran, for domestic messaging, especially to appeal to the Muslim community. This “politics of minority appeasement,” they contend, has deep roots in the party’s post-Independence history of selective accommodation for electoral gain. This pattern, critics argue, has defined Congress’s approach for decades. The party positioned itself as the “guardian of secularism” but often engaged selectively with minority issues for political gain. Sonia Gandhi’s remarks on Gaza, Iran, and Kashmir are, in this light, seen less as principled foreign policy and more as political signaling. Bharatiya Janata Party, along with growing sections of the public, views this approach not as diplomacy but as appeasement politics, dressed in contemporary rhetoric.
Strategic Tightrope Between Iran & Israel
Beyond geopolitics, the Iran-Israel conflict is steeped in ideology. Israel has never questioned the legitimacy of Iran’s existence; its actions are viewed as survival in a hostile region. Iran, in contrast, routinely declares that Israel has no right to exist, framing the conflict in existential rather than territorial terms. Tehran positions itself as the leader of the Islamic Ummah and a staunch opponent of Israeli aggression. This ideological polarity puts India in a complex position. It maintains robust ties with Israel in defence and innovation, while also valuing its strategic relationship with Iran. India’s silence, therefore, is seen by the BJP as pragmatic and by the Congress as a betrayal of values.
Selective Memory?
However, Iran has not been uncritical of India. Following the revocation of Article 370, its supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei urged India to adopt a just policy in Kashmir. In 2024, he again raised concerns about Muslims in India, Gaza and Myanmar. Critics argue that Congress conveniently ignores these recent statements, choosing instead to highlight Iran’s historical support. Is the party echoing narratives closer to Pakistan’s stance on global issues, or merely addressing Indian voters who feel moral diplomacy is being eroded? Possibly both. The larger concern is Congress’s tendency to use global issues for local political messaging. From the Shah Bano case in the 1980s to the Triple Talaq legislation and Waqf reforms, Congress has repeatedly compromised on constitutional principles to retain minority support. The same party that now raises moral concerns abroad remains silent on atrocities against Hindus in neighbouring countries, including Bangladesh. The contrast is striking.
National Security or Political Tool?
Congress frequently targets the Modi government’s foreign policy but often mirrors Pakistan’s narrative in doing so. Its response to the Pahalgam terror attack is a case in point. While eyewitnesses confirmed that victims were targeted for their religion, Congress leaders downplayed the religious aspect. Robert Vadra claimed Indian Muslims felt unsafe, while a Maharashtra Congress leader questioned whether terrorists had time to ask victims their faith—remarks that drew public backlash.
The party also questioned “Operation Sindoor,” under which the Indian Air Force struck terror camps and Pakistani air bases, asserting air superiority. Despite the strategic success, Congress amplified Pakistan’s version of events. Rahul Gandhi’s remark, “How many jets did Pakistan shoot down?” was echoed by others and gained traction in Pakistani media, bolstering Islamabad’s propaganda. Congress similarly used President Trump’s discredited claim about mediating the Kashmir issue to target Prime Minister Modi—again, without credible evidence.
Shrinking Ground, Rising Rhetoric
These actions reflect a deeper crisis: Congress has lost significant public backing, including from Muslim voters who once formed its core base. As the BJP gained majority support and regional parties like SP, RJD, and TMC eroded Congress’s influence, the party grew desperate to regain relevance. This desperation now surfaces as moral grandstanding, opportunistic narratives, and relentless attacks on the government—foreign or domestic.
Beyond Borders: A War of Minds
Seen in this light, Congress’s foreign policy stance is less about Iran or Gaza, and more about electoral politics in states like Bihar and Bengal. Defense experts often discuss the challenge of a two-front war with China and Pakistan. Given today’s internal political polarizations, some warn we may be facing a two-and-a-half front war. India’s defining battles today are not just on its borders—they are unfolding in the realm of belief, perception, and political identity. This is the War of Narratives.
