New Delhi: Amid the increasing hostilities in West Asia following US and Israel’s attack on Iran, Congress MP Manish Tewari has said that India has never supported the use of military intervention to bring about regime change in any country while questioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence. In an interview with The Wire, Tewari, who is a member of the parliamentary standing committee on external affairs, said “the silence of the government, not even speaking a word, critiquing or expressing concern at the American-Israeli intervention to bring about regime change in Iran is a matter of grave concern.”“The point is the principle of accepting regime change through military intervention. Therefore when you do not hold the line and you still claim that you are the voice of the global South your credibility gets diminished considerably, and I’m putting it very, very mildly,” he said.Since the conflict broke out on February 28 with the US and Israel launching attacks on Iran, which has since seen retaliatory actions that has spread to other Gulf regions, Modi has held telephonic conversations with leaders from the region. He also had a conversation with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. India has not issued any condemnation of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, including the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, despite strong criticism from the opposition.Tewari said that the rising tensions not only have implications for India’s energy security, but due to the presence of the large Indian diaspora in the region “volatility becomes a matter of extreme circumspection and concern.” He also questioned the timing of Modi’s visit to Israel just prior to the attacks being launched on Iran and said that India’s position on the Palestinian question “should have been laid out very clearly.”Read the full interview below, edited lightly for clarity: How do you see the escalating tensions in West Asia and its impact on India? It’s a matter of grave concern that the whole of West Asia and the greater Middle East seems to be getting embroiled in what is turning out to be a regional conflict post the American and Israeli bombing of Iran. From India’s point of view, given the fact that we have a large diaspora in this region, not only in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, but in the greater Middle East, volatility becomes a matter of extreme circumspection and concern. Moreover, it has serious implications on our energy security since we import 90% of our requirement of oil and natural gas.While the government has spoken about the safety of the Indian diaspora in these regions, and Modi has himself also spoken to leaders of several of these countries, as well as Netanyahu, the Congress has criticised the government and Modi for his silence on the US-Israel’s actions on Iran and Khamenei. How do you see the government’s position and the prime minister’s silence? India has never supported the use of coercive force or military intervention to bring about regime change in any country. That’s an unequivocal position that India has taken going across different governments all the way back to 1947. In fact, Prime Minister Vajpayee when he was requested to join the coalition against Iraq in 2003 had unequivocally said no, even when some of his ministers were leaning towards this option. Therefore, that has been a tradition, that is a continuum. And thus the silence of the government, not even speaking a word, critiquing or expressing concern at the American-Israeli intervention to bring about regime change in Iran is a matter of grave concern. Also read: US Submarine Sinks Iranian Warship In Indian Ocean; Sri Lanka Says 87 Bodies RecoveredIs the government’s silence then endangering Indian ties with Iran in the future? Irrespective of the fact that ties with Iran have been fluctuating- Iran had never taken a very sympathetic position with India when it came to Jammu and Kashmir-but that is not the point. The point is the principle of accepting regime change through military intervention. Therefore when you do not hold the line and you still claim that you are the voice of the global South your credibility gets diminished considerably, and I’m putting it very, very mildly. Would you say then without explicitly saying so, India appears to have taken a picked a side? You have to look at the Middle East in a slightly broader perspective. The troubles in West Asia did not start yesterday. They started a century back with the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the attempt by the victorious powers in World War One to reorder the greater Middle East, post the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. These fault lines actually got sketched out more than a century ago. And ultimately, what followed in 1948 with the establishment of the state of Israel, then the revolution in Iran in 1978, then four seminal events in 1979 in the greater Middle East, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the siege of Mecca by Islamic fundamentalists and hardliners. The Iranian revolution in 1979, which led to the establishment of the regime and General Zia ul Haq taking Pakistan down the course of Islamisation. Therefore, there is a long history of turbulence in the Middle East. So under those circumstances, it is not a binary that because you have decided not to unequivocally condemn what should have been condemned on day one, this means you’ve really picked a side, but yes, going forward, India’s silence, would not be well construed, not only in the global south but in large sections of the global north also. After all, the prime minister of Spain did speak out. The other contention being raised by the Congress is the timing of the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel. Is it fair to link the government’s silence on Iran with the timing of Modi’s visit to Israel? Quite frankly, that’s a question which only the government can really answer. But the one thing that the prime minister should have done when he addressed the Knesset is that India’s historical position on the Palestinian question should have been foregrounded. We have always supported the two-state solution and the UN resolutions of 1948 which called for the establishment of a Palestinian homeland in addition to the state of Israel. The Indian National Congress continued to maintain that position, even though full diplomatic relations with Israel were established in 1992 under a Congress government. So we’ve never pulled our punches when it came to articulating our position. And therefore, in the wake of what has happened in the Middle East, especially the October 7, 2023 terror attack, followed by the disproportionate use of force by Israel in the Gaza Strip, that position, by India should have been laid out very clearly. Finally, given the criticism that the opposition is mounting in this scenario, will this be taken up in parliament as it reconvenes next week?Well, in a sense, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, I had led the discussion in parliament on this issue. So obviously what is happening in the Middle East is a matter of concern, because now it is not only America, Israel versus Iran. It has become much graver. So it is a matter of concern. Since it has serious implications for India’s energy security, more than 40% of our oil and gas procurement passes through the Straits of Hormuz, and now the Strait of Hormuz has been closed for everybody except the Chinese and then, we have this alleged veto by the United States that we will not buy oil from Russia, where we were purchasing as if there was no tomorrow between April 2022 and the November of 2025. It does raise very serious questions and doubts, about India’s strategic autonomy.