Stay smart, stay neutral: Why India should avoid risky strokes in Iran-US crisis

What is the connection between a cricket Test between India and England at Leeds and a disturbing military conflict between Iran and the US involving Israel? On the face of it, there is none, but then cricket is a great metaphor to understand the game involving geopolitics and diplomacy. It was great to see a huge crowd of well-dressed English folk at the Headingly ground applauding Indian cricketers in a Test match that seems evenly poised as this is being written.

There was a time when the crowds for an India-England game were thin and often full of ethnic Indians. Things have changed so much that you could say the English now view India as closer to, if not better than, their old rivals, Australia. Some of the old assumptions that go back to Britain's colonial domination of India are gone -- from both sides.

Time changes everything, and it is time to keep that in mind as we look at the options before India following the Israel-Iran faceoff in which the military might of President Donald Trump-led Washington is more than apparent as Iran's nuclear facilities have been pounded by US stealth bombers. The broad perception is that India is on the side of Israel and, therefore, the US. It gets tricky when you notice that diplomatic relations are more than messy in the merry-go-round of geopolitics. The US sees Iran as a terror-sponsoring state, but conveniently supports Pakistan that India sees as a terror sponsor because it is a useful ally in containing both Iran and China, not to speak of Afghanistan.

Operation Sindoor showed that India is pretty much alone in its battle to contain state-supported terror attacks on India nurtured on the Pakistani soil by the very groups that the US has declared as terrorists. Don't look for logical consistency here. It is all about expediency and usefulness. Only the other day, General-turned Field Marshal Asim Munir was recommending Trump for the Nobel peace prize after an honourable luncheon at the White House but Pakistan is now officially not with the US on Iran bombings.

What should India do now? The attitude of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government in general and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in particular has been pro-Israel and anti-Islamist terror, but for all practical purposes that translates as anti-Iran. This requires a course correction following last weekend's Operation Midnight Hammer.

We need to stand back a little to get some context. While it is true that the US equated India and Pakistan in an undesirable false equivalence after Operation Sindoor, it is equally true that India decided to go ahead and buy Russian oil despite American sanctions against Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. If the "usefulness" or "sovereignty" criterion are applied equally, it is apparent that both India and the US have acted in self-interest, and not concerned about principled diplomacy on issues such as terror or the UN charter against unprovoked intervention or invasion of a sovereign country.

There are backstories for all this that could fill several books but the real question for India is: what to do now? The answer could be simple: stay clear of taking sides, and do some purposeful diplomacy at the UN with details in mind on everything, from the Palestine problem to the Iran war, economic growth and bilateral trade.

In plain language: Stay smart, stay neutral. There are already unconfirmed reports of US or Western military aircraft having refuelled in India as part of the attacks on Iran. That brings back memories of 1991 when the then short-lived government led by Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar allowed American military jets to refuel at Mumbai, sparking controversy at home and elsewhere.

Regional security is of importance to India, and that concerns Pakistan, China, and Iran. There is no need to go out of the way to support the US, which is widely seen as losing credibility already lowered by Trump's trigger-happy trade tariffs on Europe, India, and China alike. India has solid trade relations with both China and the US. Iran is not a big trading partner as there is a total bilateral turnover of less than $2 billion, but the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz controlled by Iran shows that oil prices can zoom, hurting India's economic growth precisely at a bounce-back stage. Anything that causes an oil price spike is not good for India.

It also does not help India if it spites a host of Muslim countries or their societies across the world when Israel is being widely criticised on its Gaza attacks on innocent Palestinians. In the considered interest of India's economy and regional security, it is best for India to be part of a broad coalition of nations at the United Nations to demand a cessation of hostilities and if possible, join efforts to facilitate negotiations.

There are simplistic critics who equate Operation Sindoor with Operation Midnight Hammer. That is simply not on. An act of limited reactive defence on a terrorist attack with back-up evidence cannot be equated with a proactive, preemptive military pounding on Iran's nuclear programme, for which there is no evidence in international diplomacy. If India were to do with Pakistan what the US is doing with Iran, sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, India would have had an all-out war to bomb nuclear facilities at Kahua or Islamabad.

My mind goes back to 1992, when in the month of January, India under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao established full diplomatic relations with Israel -- something that seemed impossible just a year earlier. But then, later that year in November, I was with Rao on board a jet to Senegal in Africa for a G-15 summit of emerging economies of the developed world -- and on the way, we stopped at the airport in Tunis, where Rao met Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and held cordial talks. I watched from a distance as they smiled at each other.

That meeting reminded one that if one is a friend of Israel, it does not mean one has to be a foe of the Palestinians. That spirit has to be brought back as India walks a diplomatic tightrope on a number of fronts. An elegant neutrality is a long-term asset.

The wheels of fortune keep changing in both politics and international diplomacy. In times of confusion, it might be wise to remember how things can change -- be it in American politics or global diplomacy. In cricket, there was a time when Indian players were considered lucky when they played in the English county championships. We now have English players jostling for space in the Indian Premier League tournament.

In a new atmosphere, we carry pride and competence, but not colonial baggage -- of adversity or subordination.

The Leeds Test is a good example of how things can be brought back to an even keel by a mix of diligent work and patience. In diplomacy as in cricket, every ball has to be played with a sense of purpose and fair play. Taking blind swipes will just not be cricket.