Sonia slams Modi govt's silence on Khamenei killing, demands debate in Parliament
New Delhi (PTI): In a scathing criticism of the Modi government, Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson 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 doubts about the direction and credibility of India's foreign policy.
The former Congress president also demanded that when Parliament reconvenes for the second part of the Budget session, the government's "disturbing silence" over the breakdown of international order must be debated openly and without evasion.
In her article published in The Indian Express, Gandhi said there is an urgent need for "us to rediscover" the moral strength and articulate it with clarity and commitment.
ALSO READ: Drone that hit British military base caused limited damage: Cyprus
"On March 1, Iran confirmed that its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, had been assassinated in targeted strikes carried out the previous day by the United States and Israel. The killing of a sitting head of state in the midst of ongoing negotiations marks a grave rupture in contemporary international relations," Gandhi said.
Yet, beyond the shock of the event, what stands out equally starkly is New Delhi's silence, she said.
The Government of India has refrained from condemning the assassination or the violation of Iranian sovereignty, she noted.
'Initially, ignoring the massive US-Israeli onslaught, the Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) confined himself to condemning Iran's retaliatory strike on the UAE without addressing the sequence of events that preceded it. Later, he uttered platitudes about his 'deep concern' and talked of 'dialogue and diplomacy' -- which is precisely what was underway before the massive unprovoked attacks launched by Israel and the US," Gandhi said.
"When the targeted killing of a foreign leader draws no clear defence of sovereignty or international law from our country and impartiality is abandoned, it raises serious doubts about the direction and credibility of our foreign policy," Gandhi said in her article.
Silence, in this instance, is not neutral, she asserted.
Gandhi pointed out 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 killing of a serving head of state strikes at the heart of these principles," she said.
If such acts pass without principled objection from the world's largest democracy, the erosion of international norms becomes easier to normalise, she argued.
"The unease is compounded by the timing. Barely 48 hours before the assassination, the Prime Minister returned from a visit to Israel, where he reiterated unequivocal support for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, even as the Gaza conflict continues to draw 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 partners in BRICS such as Russia and China, have kept their distance, India's high-profile political endorsement without moral clarity marks a visible and troubling departure, she said.
"The consequences of this event extend beyond geopolitics. The ripples of this tragedy are visible across continents. And India's stance is signalling tacit endorsement of this tragedy," she claimed.
Gandhi pointed out that the Congress has unequivocally condemned the bombings and targeted assassinations on Iranian soil, describing them as a dangerous escalation with grave regional and global consequences.
"We have extended condolences to the Iranian people and to Shia communities worldwide, reiterating that India's foreign policy is anchored in the peaceful settlement of disputes, as reflected in Article 51 of the Constitution of India. These principles ' sovereign equality, non-intervention and the promotion of peace ' have historically been integral to India's diplomatic identity. The present reticence, therefore, appears not merely tactical, but discordant with our stated principles," she 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 civilisational and contemporary, Gandhi said.
"His (Vajpayee's) acknowledgement of those long-standing relations seems to hold no relevance for our current government," she said.
Noting that India's ties with Israel have, in recent years, expanded across defence, agriculture and technology, the Congress leader said it is precisely because India maintains relations with both Tehran and Tel Aviv that it possesses diplomatic space to urge restraint.
"But such space depends on credibility. Credibility, in turn, rests on the perception that India speaks from principle rather than expediency.
"This is not merely 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 to Iraq and Syria – India's ability to safeguard its citizens has rested on its credibility as an independent actor, not as a proxy," she argued.
She further asked as to why should countries in the Global South trust India to defend their territorial integrity tomorrow if it appears hesitant to defend that principle today.
"The appropriate forum for resolving this dissonance is Parliament. When it reconvenes, this disturbing silence over the breakdown of international order must be debated openly and without evasion," Gandhi said.
The targeted killing of a foreign head of state, the erosion of international norms, and the widening instability in West Asia are not peripheral matters; they touch directly upon India's strategic interests and moral commitments, she asserted.
"A clear articulation of India's position is overdue. 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 civilisational ethos is not a slogan for ceremonial diplomacy; it implies a commitment to justice, restraint and dialogue, even when doing so is inconvenient.
"At moments when the rules-based order is under visible strain, silence is abdication," Gandhi said.
India has long-aspired to be more than a regional power and it has sought to serve as the conscience-keeper of the world, she said.
That stature was built on a willingness to speak for sovereignty, peace, non-violence and justice even when doing so was inconvenient, she said.
"At this moment, there is an urgent need for us to rediscover that moral strength and articulate it with clarity and commitment," Gandhi said.
Khamenei was killed in a major attack by Israel and the US in the early hours of Saturday.
The United States and Israel launched a major attack on Iran on Saturday, with US President Donald Trump calling on the Iranian public to seize control of their destiny and rise against the Islamic leadership that has ruled their country since 1979.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sujit Nair raises concerns over speculation of DMK-AIADMK understanding to block TVK
Chennai: Journalist and political commentator Sujit Nair has expressed concern over speculation that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could explore a post-poll understanding to prevent Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from forming the government in Tamil Nadu.
In a social media post, Sujit Nair said the election verdict in Tamil Nadu reflected a clear public demand for political change and argued that the mandate should be respected irrespective of political preferences.
Referring to reports and political discussions surrounding a possible understanding between the DMK and AIADMK, he said he hoped such developments remained only speculative conversations and did not turn into reality.
Nair stated that if such an alliance were to take shape, it would raise serious questions about ideological politics in the country. He said TVK had emerged through a democratic electoral process and that the legitimacy to govern in a parliamentary democracy comes from the people’s verdict.
According to him, attempts to prevent an electoral winner from forming the government through unexpected political arrangements may be constitutionally valid, but many people could view them as politically opportunistic.
He further said that such a move could particularly affect the political image of the DMK, which has historically projected itself around ideology, social justice and opposition politics. Nair said that in ideological terms, the DMK appeared closer to TVK than to the AIADMK, and joining hands with its long-time political rival only to remain in power could weaken its broader political narrative.
He added that the same questions would apply to the AIADMK as well, as the party had spent decades positioning itself against the DMK and such an arrangement could create discomfort among its cadre and supporters.
Drawing a comparison with Maharashtra politics in 2019, Nair said he had expressed similar views when the Shiv Sena formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party after the Assembly elections.
He said post-poll alliances between long-standing political rivals often create a public perception that ideology and electoral mandates become secondary when political power equations come into play.
Nair also said such developments increase public cynicism towards politics and reinforce the belief among voters that ideology is often sidelined after elections.
He maintained that the Tamil Nadu verdict was emphatic and said respecting both the spirit and substance of the mandate was important for the credibility of democratic politics.
