7 Mar 2026·Source: The Indian Express

6 min

Polity & GovernanceInternational RelationsEDITORIAL

Analysis Debunks Sonia Gandhi's Critique of India's Iran Policy

An editorial argues that Sonia Gandhi's recent criticism of the government's Iran policy is unfounded.

UPSC-Mains●UPSC-Prelims●

India's government is being criticized for its policy towards Iran, with some saying it has sided with the US. However, the government argues its approach is practical and aims to protect India's own interests, like trade and energy, by maintaining good relations with many countries, including both the US and Iran.

On March 1, Iran confirmed the assassination of its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, in targeted strikes carried out by the United States and Israel. Following this, Senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, in an article published on March 3, 2026, criticized the Indian government for its 'silence' on the event, labeling it an 'abdication' of impartiality and questioning the 'direction and credibility of our foreign policy'. Gandhi highlighted that the assassination of a sitting head of state without a formal declaration of war, especially during ongoing diplomatic processes, violates Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. She emphasized India's historical ties with Iran, citing Tehran's crucial role in blocking an anti-India resolution on Kashmir by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the UN Human Rights Council in 1994, and India's strategic diplomatic presence in Zahedan. Gandhi also referenced former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's reaffirmation of deep ties during his official visit to Tehran in April 2001. She argued that India's post-Independence foreign policy, anchored in non-alignment and strategic autonomy, is being diluted, and called for a parliamentary debate on this 'disturbing silence'.

Conversely, Ram Madhav, president of India Foundation and associated with the BJP, countered Gandhi's criticism as 'misplaced' in an opinion piece dated March 7, 2026. He argued that the Indian government consistently expressed 'deep concern' and called for 'dialogue and diplomacy' in similar conflicts, such as the US operation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the recent Iran attack, urging 'all sides' to 'exercise restraint'. Madhav clarified that while India and Iran share cordial relations, geopolitical realities and geostrategic interests guide foreign policy. He pointed out the opaqueness of Iran's theocratic governance model, Velayat-e-Faqih, where the Supreme Leader holds concentrated power, making Gandhi's repeated reference to Khamenei as 'head of state' untenable. He noted that Iranian Presidents, including Mohammad Khatami in 2003, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2008, and Hassan Rouhani in 2018, received head-of-state protocols during their visits to India, and India sent Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri to sign the condolence book for Khamenei.

Madhav also highlighted Khamenei's past anti-India remarks on Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, his comments on the 'massacre' of Muslims during CAA protests in 2020, and equating India with Gaza and Myanmar in 2024. India had deemed these utterances 'misinformed and unacceptable' interference in its internal matters. He contrasted this with India's one-day state mourning and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's condolence message for then-President Ebrahim Raisi's death in a 2024 helicopter crash. Madhav concluded that Gandhi's critique reflects the Congress party's 'traditional minority politics' with an eye on upcoming elections.

This debate underscores the complexities of India's foreign policy balancing act, particularly in West Asia, and its adherence to principles of sovereignty and non-intervention versus strategic interests. It is highly relevant for UPSC Mains GS Paper 2 (International Relations) and Prelims (Polity and Current Affairs).

Editorial Analysis

The author defends the Indian government's foreign policy towards Iran, asserting that Sonia Gandhi's criticism is misplaced and based on an obsolete understanding of international relations. He argues that India's current approach is pragmatic, non-aligned, and driven by national interest, effectively navigating complex geopolitical realities through a multi-vector engagement strategy.

Main Arguments:

Sonia Gandhi's critique is based on an outdated and abandoned understanding of non-alignment and non-commitment, failing to recognize the evolution of India's foreign policy.
India's foreign policy is now pragmatic, non-aligned, and solely focused on national interest, adapting to the complex geopolitical realities of the West Asian region.
India pursues a "multi-vector" foreign policy, allowing it to engage simultaneously with diverse global powers like the US, Russia, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia without compromising its strategic autonomy.
Despite international pressures, India has consistently maintained its strategic and economic interests with Iran, exemplified by the continued development of Chabahar Port and a balanced diplomatic stance.
India's diplomatic record, including its voting patterns at international forums like the UNHRC, demonstrates an independent approach that prioritizes national interests over aligning with any single bloc.

Counter Arguments:

Sonia Gandhi's criticism that India has abandoned traditional allies and adopted a "pro-US tilt" in its foreign policy.
The assertion that India's diplomatic approach lacks a comprehensive understanding of the complex geopolitical realities in West Asia.

Conclusion

India's foreign policy towards Iran and the broader West Asian region is a nuanced, pragmatic, and independent approach that effectively prioritizes national interests and strategic autonomy. This strategy successfully navigates complex geopolitical challenges without succumbing to external pressures or outdated ideological frameworks, ensuring India's continued influence and security.

Policy Implications

The author implicitly advocates for the continuation of India's current pragmatic, multi-vector foreign policy approach. This strategy, which balances relations with various global powers and prioritizes national interests, is presented as the most effective way to navigate complex international dynamics and secure India's strategic and economic objectives.

Expert Analysis

India's foreign policy, particularly concerning Iran, has demonstrably shifted from the ideological moorings of Nehruvian non-alignment to a pragmatic, interest-driven strategic autonomy. This evolution is not an abandonment of principles but a necessary adaptation to a multipolar world where rigid blocs are less relevant. The government's ability to engage with both the US and Iran, despite Washington's stringent sanctions, underscores this nuanced approach. The development of Chabahar Port is a prime example of India's unwavering commitment to its strategic interests, providing a vital gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. This project, alongside India's historical energy ties with Iran, illustrates a foreign policy that prioritizes connectivity and energy security above external pressures. India's diplomatic maneuvering has ensured that critical projects proceed, even if at a slower pace. Furthermore, India's participation in diverse groupings like Quad and I2U2 on one hand, and SCO and BRICS on the other, highlights its multi-vector diplomacy. This approach allows New Delhi to maximize its influence and secure its interests across various geopolitical axes, rather than being confined to a single camp. Such flexibility is crucial for a rising power with global aspirations. Critiques suggesting a 'pro-US tilt' often overlook the consistent independence in India's voting record at international forums, such as the UNHRC, where it has frequently abstained or voted against resolutions targeting Iran. This demonstrates that India's foreign policy decisions are rooted in its own assessment of national interest, not dictated by any single power. India's future foreign policy will undoubtedly remain agile, responsive, and firmly anchored in its strategic and economic imperatives.

Visual Insights

India's Evolving Iran Policy: Key Events (2019-2026)

This timeline illustrates the significant events shaping India's relationship with Iran and the broader geopolitical context, leading up to Sonia Gandhi's recent critique and the government's response. It highlights India's consistent approach of strategic autonomy and dialogue amidst complex regional dynamics.

India's foreign policy has historically been guided by Non-Alignment and strategic autonomy, aiming to maintain balanced relations with all major powers and regional actors. This approach allows India to pursue its national interests without being dictated by external pressures, even when faced with complex geopolitical events or criticisms from other nations. The recent events surrounding Iran, including the death of its Supreme Leader and past criticisms, test India's ability to uphold this nuanced foreign policy.

2019Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei criticized India on Kashmir issue.
2020Khamenei blamed India for 'massacre' of Muslims during CAA protests in Delhi.
2024Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi died in helicopter crash; India announced state mourning.
2024Khamenei tweeted equating India with Gaza and Myanmar, criticizing situation of Muslims.
March 2026Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei died in targeted strikes by US and Israel.
March 2026India expressed 'deep concern' and called for 'dialogue and diplomacy' on Iran situation.
March 2026Sonia Gandhi criticized India's Iran policy, alleging abandonment of traditional allies.

Geopolitical Context of India-Iran Relations (March 2026)

This map highlights the key countries and regions involved in the recent geopolitical developments concerning India's Iran policy. It shows the geographical locations of India, Iran, and other actors like the US and Israel, whose actions have influenced the regional dynamics and India's diplomatic stance.

Loading interactive map...

📍India📍Iran📍United States📍Israel📍Gaza Strip📍Myanmar📍Venezuela

Quick Revision

Sonia Gandhi criticized the Indian government's Iran policy as "misplaced."

The criticism suggests India has abandoned traditional allies and adopted a "pro-US tilt."

India's foreign policy is described as pragmatic, non-aligned, and focused on national interest.

India maintains a "multi-vector" foreign policy, engaging with diverse global powers simultaneously.

India continues to develop Chabahar Port in Iran despite US sanctions.

India has historically maintained good relations with both Israel and Palestine, and Saudi Arabia and Iran.

India's voting record at the UNHRC on resolutions against Iran often involves abstention or voting against, not always with the West.

India's policy on Iran's nuclear program advocates for peaceful resolution.

Key Dates

1979: Iranian Revolution

Exam Angles

GS Paper 2: International Relations - India and its neighborhood- relations.

GS Paper 2: International Relations - Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests.

GS Paper 2: International Relations - Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.

GS Paper 2: Polity - Indian Foreign Policy principles and their evolution.

More Information

Background

India's foreign policy post-independence was largely shaped by the principle of Non-Alignment, advocating for strategic autonomy and avoiding alignment with major power blocs. This approach allowed India to maintain cordial relations with diverse nations, including Iran, despite geopolitical rivalries. India and Iran share deep civilisational and strategic ties, exemplified by Iran's support in blocking an anti-India resolution on Kashmir at the UN Human Rights Council in 1994 and India's diplomatic presence in Zahedan. Iran's unique governance model, Velayat-e-Faqih (guardianship of an Islamic jurist), established after the 1979 Islamic revolution, concentrates ultimate power in the hands of the Supreme Leader, distinct from the elected President. This structure often leads to complexities in international diplomatic protocols, as the Supreme Leader, like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not typically travel abroad, while Iranian Presidents receive head-of-state treatment during international visits. The United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This principle is fundamental to international law and forms the basis for sovereign equality among nations, which India has historically championed through its foreign policy, often referencing Article 51 of the Indian Constitution which promotes international peace and security.

Latest Developments

In recent years, India's ties with Israel have expanded significantly across defence, agriculture, and technology sectors, leading to a more complex balancing act in West Asia. This has been particularly evident during the ongoing Gaza conflict, where India has expressed 'deep concern' and called for 'dialogue and diplomacy', while also reiterating support for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, on March 1, 2026, and the subsequent debate over India's response, highlights the challenges India faces in navigating regional geopolitics. India's decision to announce one-day state mourning for then-President Ebrahim Raisi's death in a 2024 helicopter crash, contrasted with its more measured response to Khamenei's death, reflects a nuanced diplomatic approach. India continues to assert its role as a voice for the Global South, advocating for a rules-based international order that protects smaller powers. However, its stance on specific international incidents, such as the Iran conflict, is closely watched for consistency with its stated principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, especially as it seeks greater influence on the world stage.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What specific provisions of the UN Charter are relevant to the assassination of a head of state, and what is India's constitutional stance on international peace?

The assassination of a sitting head of state, especially without a formal declaration of war, directly violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. India's constitutional stance aligns with promoting international peace.

•Article 2(4) UN Charter: Prohibits member states from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
•Article 51 Indian Constitution: Directs the Indian state to endeavor to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honorable relations between nations, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

Exam Tip

For Prelims, remember "Article 2(4) UN Charter = prohibition of force" and "Article 51 Indian Constitution = promotion of international peace". Examiners might try to confuse these with other articles related to human rights or self-defense.

2. Given India's continued development of Chabahar Port, what is the UPSC likely to test regarding its strategic importance and India's foreign policy approach?

UPSC is likely to test the strategic importance of Chabahar Port for India's connectivity and its role in demonstrating India's 'multi-vector' foreign policy despite US sanctions.

•Connectivity: Provides India with an alternative trade route to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan.
•Economic Significance: Facilitates trade, reduces logistics costs, and promotes regional economic integration.
•Strategic Autonomy: Highlights India's ability to pursue its national interests independently, even when it involves engaging with sanctioned countries like Iran.
•Multi-vector Policy: Shows India's commitment to maintaining relations with diverse global powers simultaneously, rather than aligning with one bloc.

Exam Tip

Remember Chabahar Port as a prime example of India's "multi-vector foreign policy" and "strategic autonomy". A common trap could be linking it solely to India-Iran relations, ignoring its broader regional connectivity and geopolitical implications.

3. If a Mains question asks to critically examine India's 'multi-vector' foreign policy in West Asia, how should I structure my answer, especially considering the Iran-Israel dynamic?

Structure your answer by introducing India's multi-vector approach, providing evidence of its application (both successes and challenges) in West Asia, critically analyzing its effectiveness, and concluding with a forward-looking perspective.

•Introduction: Define 'multi-vector foreign policy' and its relevance to India's strategic autonomy in a multipolar world.
•Body Paragraph 1 (Rationale): Explain why India adopted this policy (national interest, energy security, diaspora, connectivity needs).
•Body Paragraph 2 (Application - Successes): Provide examples of successful balancing acts (e.g., Chabahar Port with Iran despite US sanctions, growing ties with Israel in defence/tech, strong relations with GCC).
•Body Paragraph 3 (Application - Challenges/Critique): Address the challenges and criticisms (e.g., maintaining 'silence' on sensitive issues, perceived 'pro-US tilt', managing regional rivalries, impact of global events like the Iran assassination).
•Conclusion: Summarize the policy's overall effectiveness, its necessity in a complex region, and suggest future directions or improvements for India to enhance its influence and protect its interests.

Exam Tip

For "critically examine" questions, always present both the positive aspects (what the policy achieves) and the negative aspects/challenges (what it struggles with or is criticized for). Use specific examples from current events.

4. What is the fundamental difference between India's historical 'Non-Alignment' and its current 'multi-vector' foreign policy, especially concerning relations with major powers?

While both aim for strategic autonomy, 'Non-Alignment' historically implied avoiding alignment with any major power bloc, whereas 'multi-vector' actively involves engaging with multiple global powers simultaneously to maximize national interest.

•Non-Alignment (Historical): Focused on not joining military alliances (like NATO or Warsaw Pact) during the Cold War, maintaining equidistance from power blocs.
•Multi-vector (Current): Actively cultivates strong, independent relationships with diverse global powers (e.g., US, Russia, EU, Quad members, West Asian nations) based on specific national interests, without being constrained by past alignments or ideological biases.
•Flexibility: Multi-vector policy offers greater flexibility to adapt to a dynamic global order, allowing India to choose partners based on specific issues rather than overall ideological alignment.

Exam Tip

Understand that 'Non-Alignment' was a product of the Cold War bipolar world, while 'multi-vector' is a response to the multipolar world. Don't confuse the two as being identical; one evolved from the other, adapting to new geopolitical realities.

5. Why did Sonia Gandhi's critique specifically target India's 'silence' on the Iranian Supreme Leader's assassination, and what's the counter-argument for India's approach?

Gandhi's critique stemmed from the view that India's 'silence' on the assassination of a head of state, especially given historical ties with Iran, indicated an 'abdication' of impartiality and a 'pro-US tilt', violating UN Charter principles.

•Gandhi's Argument: India's historical non-alignment and strong ties with Iran (e.g., Iran blocking anti-India resolution on Kashmir) demand a vocal condemnation of such an act, which she saw as a violation of international law (UN Charter Article 2(4)).
•Counter-Argument (Editorial): India's 'silence' is not an abdication but a pragmatic application of its 'multi-vector' foreign policy. It prioritizes national interest, maintains strategic autonomy, and avoids taking sides in complex geopolitical conflicts, especially when facts are still emerging or direct involvement is not beneficial.
•Balancing Act: India needs to balance relations with Iran (Chabahar Port, energy) and its expanding ties with the US and Israel, making a nuanced, rather than overtly critical, stance strategically prudent.

Exam Tip

When analyzing critiques of foreign policy, always identify the underlying principles of the critique (e.g., historical ties, international law) and the government's stated policy (e.g., national interest, strategic autonomy, multi-vector approach).

6. What is 'Velayat-e-Faqih' and how does it define the role and significance of Iran's Supreme Leader, making his assassination particularly impactful?

'Velayat-e-Faqih' (Guardianship of the Jurist) is the foundational principle of Iran's Islamic Republic, establishing the Supreme Leader as the ultimate political and religious authority, making his assassination a profound blow to the state's very structure.

•Principle: It posits that in the absence of the 12th Imam, a qualified Islamic jurist (Faqih) should govern the state, ensuring adherence to Islamic law.
•Supreme Leader's Role: The Supreme Leader, as the Faqih, holds absolute power, overseeing all major state policies, judiciary, military, and media, and is considered the spiritual guide of the nation.
•Impact of Assassination: The assassination of the Supreme Leader is not just the loss of a head of state but a direct attack on the ideological and structural core of the Islamic Republic, potentially leading to significant internal instability and a power vacuum.

Exam Tip

Understand 'Velayat-e-Faqih' as the unique ideological basis of Iran's political system, which differentiates its Supreme Leader from typical heads of state. This concept is crucial for understanding Iran's internal dynamics and foreign policy.

7. How does India effectively balance its strategic interests with Iran (like Chabahar Port) and its expanding ties with Israel, especially in the context of US sanctions and regional conflicts?

India employs a pragmatic 'multi-vector' foreign policy, prioritizing its national interests by maintaining independent, issue-based relationships with both Iran and Israel, despite their regional rivalries and external pressures like US sanctions.

•Iran Engagement: Focuses on energy security (historical oil imports) and connectivity (Chabahar Port for access to Central Asia/Afghanistan), often negotiating waivers or finding alternative payment mechanisms to mitigate US sanctions impact.
•Israel Engagement: Expands cooperation in defence, agriculture, and technology, leveraging Israel's advanced capabilities for India's development and security needs.
•Strategic Autonomy: Avoids taking sides in the Iran-Israel conflict, maintaining dialogue with both, and advocating for peaceful resolution of disputes, thereby preserving its strategic space.
•National Interest: Decisions are driven by India's economic, security, and geopolitical imperatives, rather than ideological alignment with either party.

Exam Tip

For interview questions, emphasize India's "strategic autonomy" and "national interest" as guiding principles. Provide concrete examples like Chabahar Port and defence cooperation with Israel to substantiate your points.

8. What are the key strategic considerations for India's foreign policy in West Asia following the Iranian Supreme Leader's assassination, and what challenges might India face?

India's primary strategic considerations will be maintaining regional stability, ensuring energy security, and protecting its economic interests, while navigating potential increased volatility and heightened geopolitical rivalries in West Asia.

•Regional Stability: Any escalation of conflict between Iran, the US, and Israel could destabilize the region, impacting India's trade routes, diaspora, and security.
•Energy Security: West Asia remains a crucial source of India's energy imports. Instability could disrupt supply chains and increase oil prices.
•Diaspora Safety: A large Indian diaspora resides in West Asian countries, whose safety and well-being would be a major concern during any conflict.
•Economic Interests: India has significant investments and trade relations in the region, which could be jeopardized by increased tensions or sanctions.
•Challenges: Balancing relations with all regional players, managing the impact of potential new sanctions, and responding to calls for taking sides in a highly polarized environment.

Exam Tip

When discussing India's strategic considerations, always link them to concrete national interests: energy, economy, diaspora, and regional stability. This shows a comprehensive understanding.

9. How does the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader fit into the broader geopolitical trends in West Asia, and what are its potential ripple effects beyond the immediate region?

The assassination exacerbates existing geopolitical tensions in West Asia, particularly between Iran, Israel, and the US, fitting into a trend of proxy conflicts and direct confrontations, with potential ripple effects on global energy markets and international law.

•Increased Volatility: Adds another layer of instability to an already volatile region, potentially leading to retaliatory actions and heightened proxy conflicts.
•Power Vacuum/Succession Crisis: Could trigger internal power struggles within Iran, impacting its regional foreign policy and domestic stability.
•US-Iran Tensions: Further escalates tensions between the US and Iran, potentially impacting nuclear deal negotiations and regional military postures.
•Israel-Iran Shadow War: Intensifies the ongoing shadow war between Israel and Iran, with increased risks of direct confrontation.
•Global Impact: Could lead to spikes in global oil prices, disrupt international shipping lanes (e.g., Strait of Hormuz), and challenge the principles of international sovereignty and non-interference.

Exam Tip

When analyzing geopolitical events, always consider both immediate regional impacts and broader global consequences, especially concerning energy, trade, and international norms.

10. What specific developments should aspirants monitor regarding India's engagement with West Asia in the coming months, particularly concerning its energy security and regional stability efforts?

Aspirants should monitor developments related to the Iranian succession, the future of the Iran nuclear deal, the ongoing Gaza conflict, and India's continued progress on Chabahar Port, as these will directly impact India's interests.

•Iranian Succession: Observe who succeeds Ayatollah Khamenei and whether this leads to a shift in Iran's domestic or foreign policy.
•Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): Any revival or further breakdown of the deal will impact sanctions and regional dynamics.
•Gaza Conflict Resolution: The outcome of the Gaza conflict will significantly influence regional stability and India's diplomatic balancing act.
•Chabahar Port Development: Track India's progress on operationalizing and expanding Chabahar, as it's key to India's connectivity strategy.
•India-GCC Relations: Watch for any new initiatives or agreements between India and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, especially regarding trade and investment.

Exam Tip

Focus on specific projects (Chabahar), key agreements (nuclear deal), and major regional conflicts (Gaza) as indicators of future trends. Understand how these directly link to India's energy, trade, and strategic interests.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. With reference to India's foreign policy and its relations with Iran, consider the following statements: 1. India announced one-day state mourning for the death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in 2026. 2. Iran played a significant role in blocking an anti-India resolution on Kashmir by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the UN Human Rights Council in 1994. 3. The governance model of Velayat-e-Faqih in Iran concentrates all powers in the hands of the elected President. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 and 2 only
B.2 only
C.1 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: India did not announce one-day state mourning for the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2026. Instead, India sent Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri to sign the condolence book. India did announce one-day state mourning for the death of then-President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash in 2024. Statement 2 is CORRECT: The source explicitly states that in 1994, Iran played a consequential role in blocking an anti-India resolution on Kashmir by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the UN Human Rights Council. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: The governance model of Velayat-e-Faqih in Iran concentrates all powers in the hands of the Supreme Leader (Vali-e-Faqih), not the elected President. After the 1979 Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini introduced this concept, and Khamenei succeeded him in that post, ensuring all powers were concentrated in the hands of the supreme leader.

2. Consider the following statements regarding India's foreign policy principles and recent international events: 1. India's post-Independence foreign policy was primarily shaped by the principle of non-alignment, advocating for strategic autonomy. 2. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. 3. In response to the US operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, India condemned the US action and called for unilateral sanctions. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 only
B.2 only
C.1 and 2 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: C

Statement 1 is CORRECT: India's post-Independence foreign policy was indeed shaped by non-alignment, emphasizing strategic autonomy and a refusal to be subsumed into great power rivalries, as mentioned in the source. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, a principle highlighted in the context of the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: The source states that on two recent occasions—the US operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the attack on Iran—the Indian government 'toed the same line'. It expressed 'deep concern' and called for 'dialogue and diplomacy', urging 'all sides' to 'exercise restraint', rather than condemning the US action or calling for unilateral sanctions.

Source Articles

Ram Madhav writes: Sonia Gandhi’s criticism of government over Iran is misplaced | The Indian Express

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026

Sonia Gandhi writes: Government’s silence on killing of Iran leader is not neutral, it is abdication | The Indian Express

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026

‘Disturbing departure from moral, diplomatic traditions’: Sonia Gandhi slams India’s silence on Israel offensive in Gaza, Iran | India News - The Indian Express

The Indian Express·7 Mar 2026