Tharoor's Defence of India's West Asia Stance Draws Mixed Reactions From Opposition Leaders

New Delhi: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor's defence of India's diplomatic posture on the West Asia conflict has set off a round of sharp and divided reactions from political leaders across party lines, with some endorsing his view while others questioned both his analysis and the government's foreign policy clarity.

The reactions followed Tharoor's op-ed in The Indian Express, in which he described New Delhi's restrained response to the escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran as "responsible statecraft" — pushing back against critics who have called it a "moral failure."

Also Read: Tripura Reports Zero Dropout in Primary Classes, Says CM Manik Saha

In his piece, Tharoor defended India's approach as a pragmatic balancing act, arguing that while the conflict may violate international law, New Delhi must weigh principle against national interest, regional stability, and its strategic partnerships.

He drew on India's diplomatic tradition, invoking former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's non-alignment doctrine — which he described as not a refusal to take moral positions, but a recognition that India's sovereignty depended on staying out of Cold War entanglements.

Tharoor argued that in today's multipolar world, India practises "multi-alignment" — engaging with diverse and sometimes competing powers while keeping national interest at the centre.

The first significant pushback came from within Congress itself. MP Tariq Anwar told IANS that Tharoor's views may be personal, and stressed that what is needed is a clear, officially defined position from the Indian government.

"During this entire period, what we have seen is the ongoing conflict in the Gulf between America, Israel, and Iran. India should make its stand clear. It is still not clear what our role is. It has not been defined," Anwar said.

RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha was more direct in his disagreement, arguing that India's diplomatic tradition has always been grounded in moral positioning — not merely strategic calculation.

"I am aware of Shashi Tharoor's talent, but I cannot fully agree with his analysis. Even when we were not economically strong and had just become independent, we still took a moral position based on global balance," Jha said.

He added that he has written on this subject before and stands by his disagreement with Tharoor's framing.

Not all reactions were critical. Rajasthan Minister Jogaram Patel came out in support of Tharoor, saying the Congress MP has a strong track record on foreign policy matters.

"Shashi Tharoor is known for speaking the right things. He has represented India abroad for a long time. Even now, what he has said is correct, and the Congress should accept it," Patel said.

NCP-SP MP Fauzia Khan took a more pointed line, questioning the fundamental basis of India's foreign policy stance on the conflict.

"What kind of policy is this? We have not understood it to date. Maybe Shashi Tharoor knows, but I still do not understand what kind of policy allows for the killing of innocent girls and the assassination of a nation's leader, while our sensitivity remains unawakened and we say nothing," she said.

The broader backdrop to this debate is a growing sense of unease within sections of the Congress party, where several leaders have accused the central government of maintaining a "deafening silence" on the West Asia crisis and failing to play a proactive diplomatic role.

Tharoor's op-ed, by appearing to defend that silence as principled statecraft, has widened that internal divide — making it one of the more unusual instances of a senior opposition MP publicly defending the ruling government's foreign policy choices.