US-Israel vs Iran war: What explains India’s silence on Khamenei’s death?

On March 5, India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visited the Iranian Embassy in New Delhi and signed the condolence book to pay tribute to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on behalf of the government. Five days after his elimination in the joint US-Israel strike on February 28, this was the first time India publicly expressed condolences.

New Delhi: India’s response to the death of Iran’s supreme leader was calculated and measured. On Thursday (March 5), Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visited the Iranian Embassy in Delhi and signed the condolence book to pay tribute to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on behalf of the government.

Five days after his death, this was the first time India publicly expressed condolences. Khamenei passed away on February 28 during an attack on Iran by the United States and Israel.

Earlier, on the first day of the war, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi over the phone.

However, the subsequent press statements issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) made no mention of condolences from India or criticism of the US-Israel strikes. India was silent on Khamenei’s death for five days. It prompted the Opposition to question the government’s stand on Iran.

Historically, India has responded differently in comparable situations. In 2024, when Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash, the government declared a day of national mourning. A government spokesperson had then said, “As a mark of respect to the late dignitaries, the Government of India has decided that May 21 (Tuesday) will be observed as a day of national mourning across the country.”

In 2020, after the United States killed top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike, India issued a statement expressing concern over the escalating tensions. The Ministry of External Affairs said, “We have noted that a senior Iranian leader has been killed by the United States. Rising tensions have caused global concern. Peace, stability and security in the region are of utmost importance to India. It is essential that the situation does not deteriorate further.”

Similarly, in June last year, when the United States and Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke by phone with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and expressed concern over rising tensions. After initial hesitation, India also endorsed statements by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS criticising the airstrikes.

During the 12-day conflict in June 2025, Iran granted India special concessions and opened its airspace for Indian aircraft repatriating Indian students.

Reasons behind the silence

Despite these precedents, India did not declare a day of national mourning for Khamenei nor publicly condemn the airstrike that caused his death. Analysts say India’s silence shows changes in global politics.

Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal suggested in an article that India’s decision not to criticise the attacks can be understood similarly to the country’s restraint in condemning Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. This, according to him, would test India’s diplomacy at the United Nations. The silence followed a policy of staying out of big-power conflicts when key interests, such as ties with the United States, Israel and Gulf countries, were involved.

Former Indian Ambassador Rakesh Sood gave three reasons for India’s restraint in an article in The Hindu. He said New Delhi’s silence should be seen in the context of today’s complex geopolitics.

First, international politics have become much more complicated, and India has to balance different interests. Second, India’s ties with Iran have weakened over the years, even with projects like the Chabahar Port. Third, Khamenei had previously made comments on Kashmir and India’s minority issues, which India did not view positively.

He said these factors together made it harder for India to respond publicly.

JNU Professor and international affairs expert Hapimon Jacob described India’s approach as the “art of a balanced message”.

He said that EAM Jaishankar separately appealed both Iran and Israel for de-escalation. The MEA’s statement emphasised “respect for sovereignty and regional integrity”, which could be interpreted as indirect criticism of the strikes without naming the United States or Israel.

According to him, this approach allows India to protect its practical interests in energy, the diaspora and trade connectivity.

A calculated diplomatic move

JNU Professor PR Kumaraswamy, a Middle East expert, described India’s silence as a calculated strategy. He explained in an article published in The Week that the prime minister’s restraint shows India’s strategic interests in Gulf countries.

Iranian retaliation had targeted Gulf nations, which are crucial to India for energy, trade and diplomatic partnerships. Nearly 10 million Indians work in the region. Protecting their security and the flow of remittances is vital to India’s economy.

Referring to the 1990 Kuwait crisis, Kumaraswamy added that partial positions in regional politics often have long-term consequences. He argued that openly expressing sympathy for Khamenei could have upset Arab partners.

He also reminded that Khamenei had previously criticised India on Kashmir and Muslims. In this context, India’s foreign policy prioritises Gulf stability and national interests over symbolic expressions of mourning.

Even so, analysts view Misri’s eventual signing of the condolence book at the Iranian Embassy on Thursday as a timely and appropriate step.

Sibal wrote on X, “This is the right step. We have state-level relations with Iran. It is good that the foreign secretary signed the condolence book.”

Opposition questions the govt

The Opposition, however, described this move as a compelled response. The Congress party criticised the government, saying, “Condolence expressed after political pressure or public criticism is not genuine sentiment but merely an effort to save face.”

Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera wrote on X, “From February 28 to Wednesday (February 4) afternoon, the government neither condemned the actions of the United States and Israel nor expressed condolences to the people of Iran.”

He added that the Congress had labelled this silence as “moral cowardice” at a press conference, forcing the government to respond. The party claimed that the subsequent signing of the condolence book in New Delhi appeared to be a reaction taken under pressure rather than a spontaneous gesture.