The war between the US-Israel axis and Iran has laid bare a fundamental question: What is India’s stand? As the conflict escalates and the Strait of Hormuz closes, the absence of a clear, principled position has become a critical vulnerability. The government’s response has been characterised by wordplay and ambiguity, leaving citizens and allies alike in the dark.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.This crisis follows a series of high-profile diplomatic engagements that now seem contradictory. Prime Minister Modi’s February 2026 state visit to Israel was marked by the elevation of the relationship to a “Special Strategic Partnership”. However, just weeks earlier, India had signed the “Delhi Declaration” with Arab nations, explicitly supporting a “sovereign, independent, and viable State of Palestine” and positioning itself as a “bridge” between conflicting interests.This duality raises a troubling question: How does one reconcile a “Special Strategic Partnership” with a nation at war, while simultaneously pledging support to its adversaries’ cause? The result is a foreign policy that appears transactional.The economic sovereignty questionThe most immediate consequence of this strategic drift is the energy crisis triggered by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. For years, India profited from discounted Russian oil, saving an estimated Rs 12 billion. This was a pragmatic move that shored up the economy against global price volatility, although the decline in international fuel prices did not benefit the Indian customers.However, a February 2026 tariff deal with the US included a key condition: India would scale back its purchases from Russia and begin buying unrefined, shale-sourced oil from the United States. This meant abandoning a discounted, proximate source for a more expensive, distant one, adding significant freight charges and refinery costs – effectively trading a measure of economic sovereignty for a tariff waiver.India imports 88-90% of its crude oil and roughly 50% of its gas needs. Nearly 2.5 to 2.7 million barrels per day – about half of India’s total consumption – passes through this chokepoint. If Hormuz remains closed for just 15 days, the country faces a monumental supply crisis.With 88% import dependency, our primary supply route (Hormuz) closed and our backup (discounted Russian oil) abandoned, India’s energy security appears alarming if the war continues. With international oil prices spiking and the Indian rupee depreciating simultaneously, the outlook is dispiriting – a brutal arithmetic that will translate directly into higher costs for fuel, food, and everything that moves on wheels.The contingency plans being discussed – dipping into strategic reserves, and rationing LPG – are reactive scrambles, not the actions of a nation with a coherent strategy. By pivoting away from Russia under US pressure, India has lost its leverage and is now exposed to the full force of a conflict it failed to anticipate or influence.On March 5, 2026, India received a brief reprieve. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a 30-day waiver “allowing” India to purchase Russian crude oil. The move was explicitly described as a short-term measure to keep global oil supplies flowing amid disruptions linked to the Middle East conflict. The subtext was unmistakable: this is a one-time exception, not a policy shift. Bessent immediately coupled the waiver with an expectation: “India is an essential partner of the United States, and we fully anticipate that New Delhi will ramp up purchases of U.S. oil”. Who decides India’s energy policy – Washington or Delhi?The “Vishwaguru” dilemmaThe title “Vishwaguru” implies moral leadership and strategic clarity. Yet, in this crisis, India’s response has been defined by a search for opportunity and a marked absence of moral clarity. The attempt to please all sides has resulted in policy paralysis, leaving the nation isolated.As the conflict engulfs the region, the world sees no leader in India. It sees a nation scrambling for oil, hoping its contradictory partnerships will somehow shield it from the fallout. India has traded its long-term strategic autonomy for short-term gains, and the bill has come due in March 2026.The government’s policy vacuum also explains why India did not raise objections when the US chose to torpedo an Iranian ship in the Indian Ocean, not very far from the coast. The lack of clarity exposes a deeper crisis – a nation that has lost its strategic compass.The Chabahar folly: A half-billion dollar investment abandonedNowhere is India’s strategic confusion more evident than in the case of the Chabahar port in Iran. For years, this project was hailed as India’s gateway to Central Asia – a way to bypass Pakistan and access the markets of Afghanistan and beyond. It was a long-term strategic investment, not a commercial venture.India has already spent an estimated $500 million on port development. Yet, citing American tariff threats, New Delhi has now stopped engaging with the project. We have effectively abandoned a half-billion-dollar asset, gaining nothing in return. The US has offered no compensation, no guarantee of alternative access. We folded, trading a tangible strategic asset for the possibility of favourable US trade terms.India is now in a fix: we are not getting any returns for the investment we made in the region. The port remains underutilised, our credibility as a reliable partner is damaged, and we have demonstrated that a phone call from Washington can reverse Indian commitments.The self-styled “mother of democracy” has responded to the crisis in West Asia not with moral clarity but with opportunism, seeking commercial advantage while the region burns. Having abandoned discounted Russian oil under US pressure, we now find ourselves at the mercy of an “America First” administration, our economic sovereignty exchanged for a tariff waiver. At the same time, we are trying to improve relations with China, but we face unresolved border issues with that country. The normalisation with Beijing appears to conflict with ground realities. Although Chinese investment has been invited to develop manufacturing hubs, China has made no concessions on the border issue and continues to construct the largest dams globally on our border, threatening our water security.Domestic contradictions: The myth of “Brand India”While the government courts foreign investors at AI summits and hi-tech conclaves, the reality on the ground offers a different perspective. With 7,400 homes demolished as extra-legal punishment and a 93% increase in hate speech fuelling social division, the 2026 UN Human Rights Watch report presents a harsh picture: a government that has normalised violence. How does this systematic lowering of India’s human rights record on global platforms align with the image of a “Vishwaguru” (World Teacher) or the “Mother of Democracy”? Foreign investors are not blind; they monitor social stability, and the current path is worrying. Are we genuinely building a nation, or are we branding a facade that no longer reflects reality?Beyond the immediate economic emergency and a spiking environmental crisis, a deeper rot threatens India’s future. Social divisions are being deliberately stoked, and the steady erosion of democratic norms is not merely a moral failing – they are systematically dismantling the very foundation upon which long-term, sustainable growth must be built.We are not a guru guiding the world; we are struggling to keep pace. This is India’s weakest strategic position since 1947, and the crisis is only beginning.C.P. Rajendran is a geoscientist and a communicator on science, policies, environment and education.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.