Saturday Posts

The issue is not whether India should be “for” or “against” Israel, the United States, Iran, or the Gulf states in some emotional or ideological sense. The issue is whether any of these relationships, as they are currently conducted, advance India’s long-term interests without narrowing India’s strategic autonomy. India’s strength has always lain in balance — in keeping multiple relationships alive at once, in speaking across divides, and in refusing to let any one partnership become a trap. That is not weakness. It is the essence of serious statecraft for a country of India’s scale, geography, and civilizational depth. What has changed in recent years is the tone of the domestic discourse. There is a marked tendency to see Israel less as a partner than an object of admiration, even envy — a symbol of unapologetic force, swift retaliation, and the fantasy of unencumbered power. Much of the media has climbed aboard this train, cheering Israel less as a state with which India has specific interests than as a projection of their own ideological desires. That is where the danger lies. Admiration for Israeli military prowess is not strategy. It is emotional substitution. India is not Israel. Our geography is different, our scale is different, our society is different, and our vulnerabilities are different. We cannot afford to inherit another country’s siege mentality as if it were our own doctrine. The real test for India is not whether it can applaud force. It is whether it can preserve room for manoeuvre, protect its energy and maritime interests, maintain credibility across West Asia, and keep its own voice. A country like India should not suffer from “Israel envy”. It should have the confidence to be itself. I am sure it can.