The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a US-Israeli strike was one of the most consequential geopolitical events in recent years, triggering an ever-expanding regional war and reshaping the political landscape of the Middle East. Yet, India’s official response was strikingly muted.It took five days for the government to offer condolences. When it finally did, the foreign secretary visited the Iranian embassy and signed the condolence register. Neither the prime minister nor the external affairs minister issued a public statement, and no senior ruling party leader acknowledged the assassination. Equally striking was the absence of any condemnation of the American torpedoing of the IRIS Dena, an Iranian vessel returning from an international naval exercise in Visakhapatnam, that killed more than 70 cadet sailors. There was similarly little reaction to the bombing of a school in Minab that reportedly killed 165 civilians, most of them schoolgirls aged 7 to 12.These silences were more than mere omissions. In this case, they reveal how profoundly India’s foreign policy has changed. For much of the post-independence period, the country’s external relations were guided by a combination of ethical considerations and strategic autonomy. This did not imply neutrality or passivity; rather, it reflected a commitment to independent decision-making while engaging competing global powers. Rooted in the ideas articulated by Jawaharlal Nehru and institutionalised through the non-aligned movement, this approach allowed India to maintain relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union without subordinating its foreign policy to either. That tradition broadly persisted for decades. Over the past ten years, however, the current government has moved toward closer structural alignment with the United States.Part of this alignment stems from Washington’s effort to position the country as a counterweight to China. It has promoted the idea that it represents the democratic balance to an authoritarian China, a narrative that policy makers have progressively embraced. Defence and technological cooperation have deepened accordingly, reflected in major purchases of American military equipment and expanding collaboration in advanced technologies. Social ties further reinforce this relationship: the Indian diaspora in the United States has become very influential, and many middle-class families have relatives living and working there.Yet the relationship remains marked by a clear imbalance. Trade arrangements are heavily tilted in Washington’s favour, with the US prioritising tangible concessions over shared values, including demands that challenge the country’s commitment to autonomy and sovereignty. The US has not hesitated to impose unilateral conditions in the Indo-US trade deal (not yet finalised), which, upon implementation, would effectively create captive markets for American goods. Recent statements by American officials underscore this changed dynamic.The US Commerce Secretary recently remarked that India had been “permitted” to continue purchasing Russian oil for thirty days to stabilise global markets. The suggestion that it requires American permission to set its energy policy underscores how far the relationship has shifted. An equally revealing remark came from the US deputy secretary of state at the Raisina Dialogue, who noted that the US would not support India’s development to the point where it might emerge as another China, a major rival to American power. This made it explicit that India may be welcomed as a counterweight to China, but not as a competitor.A similar logic was evident in Marco Rubio’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference, where he dismissed the idea that international law or multilateral institutions should constrain great powers, effectively undermining states’ sovereignty and normalising a geopolitical order reminiscent of the colonial period. Yet the government’s representatives did not publicly challenge this position.Nowhere is this shift more evident than in the government’s response to the unrelenting bombing of Iran. Its reluctance to condemn the US-Israeli attacks – contrasted with its readiness to denounce Iran’s retaliation against Gulf states hosting US assets and bases – marked a clear departure from the political balance that had long characterised India’s approach to the region.Yet, the government and its supporters justify this position by arguing that refusing to take sides in the conflict serves the country’s best interests. By co-sponsoring a UN resolution against Iranian retaliation, the government appeared to endorse a particular geopolitical perspective, one that cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader US project of global hegemony and Israel’s pursuit of regional control in the Middle East.These developments suggest not only a strategic shift but also an erosion of the moral dimension that informed it. For decades, India balanced pragmatic interests with normative commitments, including support for Palestinian self-determination. Its continued reluctance to condemn the devastation in Gaza, however, sits uneasily with that long-standing position. By refraining from condemning US-Israeli military actions and repeated violations of international law, the government’s position appears to sideline ethical considerations, which is an altogether troubling development.It signals an ideological turn in foreign policy, which goes beyond defence cooperation or technological partnerships; it reflects a broader convergence shaped by ideological alignment and domestic political considerations.The prime minister’s visit to Israel just forty-eight hours before it launched strikes on Iran was particularly striking in this context. Even if there was no prior knowledge, speculation about a possible US-Israeli attack had been widespread for weeks, and the timing inevitably drew attention. His address to the Knesset further reinforced the perception of a clear pro-Israel tilt.The consequences are significant: while Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu secured political legitimisation, India – once the undisputed leader of the non-Western world – appeared relegated to a minor role, unable to uphold the moral stance it had historically claimed.Some observers attribute the government’s caution to practical concerns, including the safety of its large diaspora in the Middle East. Such considerations, together with the need to safeguard energy security dependent on regional oil and gas imports, undoubtedly carry weight. Yet they do not fully explain the broader shift that has occurred over the past decade. A more significant factor appears to be the growing conjunction between the ruling party’s ideology and external alignment.Pro-Israel policy reinforces the majoritarian politics and anti-Muslim prejudiceThe pro-Israel policy both reflects and reinforces the majoritarian politics and anti-Muslim prejudice visible in its politics. In effect, domestic and foreign policy are now mutually reinforcing: ideological priorities at home shape international alignments, while external alignments validate and strengthen domestic political agendas, a structural shift largely overlooked in conventional foreign policy analysis.This transformation carries implications that extend beyond foreign policy. India’s democracy and commitment to equal rights have long functioned as a global public good. In a country of India’s scale and diversity, the successful practice of pluralism has served as an important example to the world. That reputation as a secular democracy rooted in constitutional values is now under strain from within.When a large and influential democracy succumbs to the politics of hate and exclusion – undermining dissent, institutions, and democratic norms – the consequences extend far beyond its borders. Growing majoritarian and authoritarian tendencies, alongside the erosion of strategic autonomy, the principle that enabled India to navigate great-power rivalries while preserving independence, signal a deeper domestic and geopolitical shift.If this trajectory continues, India risks losing both the flexibility that defined its policies and the moral authority that underpinned them. Once known for its independent judgment and principled internationalism in solidarity with nations and peoples confronting injustice, India is now increasingly cast as a subordinate partner in a broader hegemonic project, at the expense of the autonomy that once gave it a powerful voice on the world stage.Zoya Hasan is Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.