India's position on Iran attacks is par for the course: A comparison with what SCO, ASEAN and Turkiye said

India has been criticised, especially by the minority vote-dependent opposition parties and the Congress, for its muted response to the Israel-US attack on Iran. Some observers have wondered if we have picked sides in a war that will impact the Indian economy as much as the rest of the world. Sonia Gandhi has been particularly vocal in her critique of the government’s silence.

A close reading of the official statements made by India’s ministry of external affairs (MEA), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and Turkiye suggests that our reticence is not exactly an outlier.

India’s initial statement, made on 28 February, has since been overtaken by events, with External Affairs Secretary, Vikram Misri, signing a condolence register at the Iranian embassy in Delhi. The initial statement was anodyne. It read: “India is deeply concerned at the recent developments in Iran and the Gulf region. We urge all sides to exercise restraint, avoid escalation, and prioritise the safety of civilians” It added: “Dialogue and diplomacy should be pursued to de-escalate tensions and address underlying issues. Sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states must be respected.” The last line is not as neutral as it sounds, since it is an indirect rebuke to Israel and the US which breached the sovereignty of Iran by jointly attacking it. But India did not mention Israel and US as the aggressors.

However, the Indian statement must be view in a broader perspective, as it is also part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), where China and Russia dominate. The SCO, while naming the US and Israel as the initiators of the war, did not however seek to directly condemn the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The SCO statement read:

“The SCO member-states consider the use of force as unacceptable and advocate for the resolution of existing differences exclusively by peaceful means, based on dialogue, mutual respect, and taking into account the legitimate interests of all parties, in accordance with the norms of international law and the principles of the UN Charter.” There is no mention of Israel and the US, but there is concern for those killed, which presumably includes the Ayatollah. “The SCO member states express sincere condolences to the families of those murdered as a result of the attack and declare their solidarity with and support for the government and the people of Iran.”

Since India too is a party to the SCO statement, it is worth pointing out that whatever deficit one might see in the official MEA statement is now more or less rectified in this collective statement.

Now let us look at the ASEAN statement, which includes many Muslim-majority countries, including the largest one, Indonesia. The statement notes both the initial aggressors by name, Israel and the US, but also mentions the retaliatory attacks by Iran on many countries in West Asia, including Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain, among others. But it concludes with a generality: “We call on all countries to respect international law, including the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter)…We reaffirm the obligation of all states to resolve their differences through peaceful means and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, in line with international law, including the UN Charter. We further reiterate the obligations to protect civilians and civilian infrastructures in armed conflicts consistent with international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions.”

In sum, the ASEAN statement does a balancing act, and makes more explicit what India said in muted words: that dialogue and diplomacy must carry the day and sovereignty must be respected.

A stronger reaction came from Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkiye, which seeks to be seen as a leader of the Islamic world. There is explicit condemnation of Israel as the agent provocateur, but nothing against the US, which leads Nato, of which Turkiye is a part. Erdogan’s statement also does a limited balancing act by criticising the Iranian attack of other neighbours. His statement reads thus (inter alia), but underscores his commitment to Islamic unity:

“As Türkiye, while we strive during these blessed days for peace, stability and tranquillity to prevail in our region and across the Islamic world, we are deeply saddened and concerned by the US–Israeli attacks launched against our neighbour Iran as a result of Netanyahu’s provocations.”

After noting that negotiations for peace did not fructify, he again blasted Israel as villain of the piece. Israel is seen to have attempted to undermine the attempts to achieve a peaceful resolution of the problems with Iran. Turkiye thus critiques both the attack on Iran and the latter’s retaliation: “We deplore (the)…attacks, which not only constitute a clear violation of Iran’s sovereignty but also target the peace and well-being of the friendly and brotherly people of Iran. Likewise, we find Iran’s missile and drone attacks against our brotherly countries in the Gulf unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.”

He calls for Islamic unity and diplomacy. “In order to prevent the war from escalating further, to avert further bloodshed and to spare our region from even greater suffering, all actors - particularly the Islamic world - must act without delay.” He ends with further calls to stand by his religious fraternity. “Until these difficult days are overcome, we will continue, as a state and as a nation, to stand by all brotherly peoples in the region.”

Erdogan’s reaction is thus sectarian in its calls for peace.

These statements by SCO, ASEAN, Turkiye and India suggest that there are nuanced differences in the stands taken based on political realities and alignments. India is not exactly an outlier in its response to the war, especially if we add the SCO statement to the mix.