On 25 February, Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, told the Israeli parliament that his country “joins [Israel] and the world for dialogue, peace and stability in this region”.Just three days later, Benjamin Netanyahu paid homage to his best friend’s solemn words. By bombing Iran.In fact, in what stands out as an extraordinary act of feminist liberation of Iranian women, Israel has butchered at least 60 girls in a school in the country’s south.But, this is no occasion for humour. As an Indian, it hurts to know that our honourable PM’s words count for nothing – even to his new best friend from Tel Aviv whose government bestowed upon him a (made-up) medal of honour.Now that Israel, alongside its parent military contractor, United States, has started a completely avoidable war in West Asia, reportedly even hitting targets close to an India-operated port in southern Iran, how must one recall Modi’s Israel visit in retrospect?Do we remember it as a sincere, though ill-timed, attempt to expand ties with an indispensable strategic ally?Or do we now slot it as a vain, geopolitically imprudent and rather embarrassing endeavour to appease a warmonger who could not care less about India’s interests in West Asia (or his wise friend’s pacifist counsel)?I am inclined to go with the latter. But, geopolitics is a complicated and uncertain game. Only time will reveal the true nature of Modi’s theatrical tour.But, the baseline here is clear. For India, West Asia is far beyond Israel. It is an incredibly important region in the extended neighbourhood that not only supplies a large share of India’s crude oil, but also hosts some 9.7 million Indian expatriates.The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) itself is India’s largest trading partner bloc, with trade totalling around USD 178.56 billion in FY 2024-25.This essentially means that India simply cannot afford to put all its eggs in one basket i.e. Israel. While the GCC itself is internally divided over ties with the Zionist regime, the overall geopolitical landscape dictates that New Delhi continue to balance its outreach to the region to protect its own footing – something that it had done pretty well so far, even under the Modi government.But, Modi’s recent Israel visit – the timing, the tone and scope of his verbal iterations, the well-orchestrated paraphernalia around his entourage – arguably unveiled a new diplomatic posture in West Asia. It signalled a clear shift of preference in favour of Israel – as close West Asia watcher and journalist, Stanly Johnny, also argued recently.We cannot gloss over the fact that Modi’s visit came amid the Zionist regime’s still-ongoing genocidal violence against Palestinians in Gaza and escalating settler violence in the West Bank (aimed at full annexation).A recent Lancet study put the total death toll in Gaza at more than 75,000, with women, children and the elderly accounting for 56% of the violent deaths in the besieged strip between 7 October 2023 – the day Hamas attacked Israel and the latter began its genocidal offensive against all Palestinians in Gaza – and 5 January 2025.These morbid figures, which did not feature in his speeches, place Modi’s visit in a particularly troubling context. His choice to make an official tour in the shadows of Gaza’s unending tragedy is a geopolitical and dare I say, ideological signal in itself – that New Delhi supports Israel and is willing to look away from its unforgivable excesses against Palestinians.In fact, Modi said this in as many words at the Knesset:“India stands with Israel, firmly, with full conviction, in this moment, and beyond.”These words grate even harder into India’s moral conscience now as the Zionist regime pounds Iran. It makes one wonder if the Modi government also unconditionally supports what is essentially an illegal attack in clear violation of Iranian sovereignty and the UN charter.While this is likely not the case, New Delhi isn’t willing to spell it out unequivocally. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has just put out its first official statement on the attacks. It does not mention, let alone condemn, the aggressors.Even its statement after the June 2025 attack on Iranian nuclear sites mentioned ‘Israel’. One wonders what prompted the critical omission this time when Israeli aggression is even more blatant. In fact, the boilerplate statement can be copy-pasted and used to describe just any escalation in the Gulf.It is also fair to say that among the official responses put out by governments of the five BRICS countries, India’s is the weakest (see the other statements here: Brazil, Russia, China, South Africa).What stands out to me in the Indian statement is its call for “dialogue and diplomacy” to be pursued to “de-escalate tensions and address underlying issues.” There is ample evidence from public accounts and media reports to suggest that Iran was doing precisely that before Israel sent a barrage of missiles straight towards Tehran.Does that small but critical detail not deserve a mention in Delhi’s official statement (like it did in the Brazilian one), especially since Netanyahu has disingenuously claimed on record that the Iranians were using the ‘deceitful and fruitless negotiations’ to simply ‘buy time’ to build a nuclear arsenal?Or does the Modi government see better sense in keeping Netanyahu happy by deliberately looking over this pivotal fact, which exposes the Zionist subterfuge on the whole Iran nuclear issue?If that is indeed the case, then one wonders what India’s grand foreign policy narrative amounts to in the bigger picture. Where does Delhi’s dithering and rhetorical vagueness leave our famed ‘strategic autonomy’ – a phrase that our foreign minister loves throwing around at fancy conclaves?The real test of strategic autonomy, I argue, is not when a bunch of self-serving Western governments are pointing fingers at India for buying cheap Russian oil. That’s easy flak to deflect (even though we seemed to have ceded some ground on that matter too).The real test of strategic autonomy is when a fellow member of the global south, one that has unfailingly stood with us through thick and thin, comes under naked imperialist aggression from a country that is keen to court you for its own narrow interests.What we say in moments like these sets the tone for what we want to be at a global stage and how we want to be remembered in history.But, if ‘strategic autonomy’ means turning our heads away, issuing tepid words of advice and exercising what can only be termed as unconscientious neutrality, then we better replace it with something more honest – like ‘strategic obscurity’.It is, of course, tempting to take a hardcore realist view and equate ‘strategic autonomy’ with ‘neutrality’. Even if we stay with this conservative line of argument, we are forced to ask – are we really ‘neutral’ anymore?Or have we taken an unmistakable stance in favour of an axis of imperialist powers that is hell bent upon obliterating whatever was left of a stable and peaceful West Asia just to expand its own vulturous remit?The answer, I am afraid, is not what most of us want to hear.Angshuman Choudhury is a joint doctoral candidate in Comparative Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore and King’s College London.This article first appeared on the author’s Substack and has been republished with permission.