Choosing not to be a peace-broker

‘STRATEGIC silence’ refers to the deliberate choice made by a state to remain silent, indifferent and unconcerned in the context of major armed conflicts. Before and after the ceasefire in the US-Israel war against Iran, several countries attempted to de-escalate tensions between the warring parties. Pakistan, along with Egypt and Türkiye, has played the role of facilitator or peace-broker to de-escalate hostilities between Iran and the US. However, India, which is a larger country in both size and population, and has stronger economic and political clout, has shown reluctance to initiate peace efforts, despite enjoying cordial relations with both Israel and Iran. This is not the only conflict where New Delhi has chosen ‘strategic silence’ over proactive peace diplomacy. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict too, India has remained a silent observer and played a cautious role.

Why is India reluctant to play the role of peace-broker in major conflicts? What are the strategic, political and historical factors that limit India to sitting on the fence and observing these conflicts as a silent spectator?

At the core of this posture lies the enduring imprint of the Nehruvian legacy. The principles laid out by India’s first prime minister, including non-alignment and an inward-looking foreign policy, continue to define New Delhi’s external policies today. Although, in the post-Cold War era, non-alignment has been replaced with the principles of multi-alignment and strategic autonomy, New Delhi’s fundamental political behaviour remains unchanged. New Delhi is highly cautious and reluctant to act as a peace-broker or side with a particular party in armed conflicts, especially those involving great powers, as it would then risk exposing itself to competing pressures and expectations.

Secondly, New Delhi’s strategic attention remains centred on conflicts and geopolitics in its immediate neighbourhood. Historically, New Delhi has shown a predilection for intervening in the internal conflicts of its smaller neighbours in the immediate vicinity. However, it refrains from attempting to resolve conflicts beyond its immediate neighbourhood. Moreover, the late prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to deploy Indian peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka left a lasting mark on New Delhi’s strategic thinking. New Delhi’s peace facilitation proved politically costly and strategically damaging.

New Delhi has created a perception gap between its stated ambitions and its actual strategic conduct.

Third, in recent conflicts, especially the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US-Israel war on Iran, New Delhi tried to extract economic dividends rather than attempting to resolve those conflicts. For instance, soon after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, India significantly increased imports of Russian oil at discounted rates, which not only secured uninterrupted oil supplies but also helped New Delhi earn foreign exchange by redirecting refined Russian oil from Indian refineries to Euro­pean markets. Recently, New Delhi secured five million barrels of Iranian crude oil amid the ongoing conflict and imported its first Iranian LPG cargo after six years. For New Delhi, the peaceful resolution of these conflicts is economically less rewarding than when they are prolonged.

Further, despite acquiring considerable economic strength and diplomatic clout, New Delhi lacks strategic confidence, which is an essential ingredient for playing a proactive role as peace-broker in major armed conflicts. Likewise, its domestic political environment prevents New Delhi from assuming the role of mediator in international conflicts. Indian foreign policy is largely influenced by domestic political variables. In any conflict, New Delhi’s immediate reaction is confined to the safe return of its citizens from conflict zones; it tends to prefer stability and economic performance over ambitious but uncertain diplomatic ventures. Lastly, New Delhi’s rejection of third-party mediation in the Kashmir dispute keeps it from mediating elsewhere.

However, the cost of New Delhi’s strategic silence is neither negligible nor without long-term strategic consequences. As India increasingly aspires to position itself as a leading voice of the Global South and consistently demands a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, its conspicuous silence in major conflicts, particularly those unfolding in the Global South, undermines its claims to leadership. The leadership of the Global South does not merely entail attending a few summit-level meetings and inking some economic agreements. It demands political and strategic visibility during conflicts, crisis management skills and the willingness to shoulder responsibility in conflict resolution. By remaining strategically disengaged, New Delhi has created a perception gap between its stated ambitions and its actual strategic conduct. Today, India is equally viewed in the West and the Global South as a nation ‘sitting on the fence’ with a lack of political will and limited ability to shape the future of regional and global armed conflicts.

India’s strategic silence has inadvertently eroded its long-term position in an increasingly competitive geopolitical landscape. In contrast, India’s regional rivals, China and Pakistan, have consistently demonstrated a willingness to step into mediation and facilitation roles across diverse conflict theatres. For instance, Beijing brokered a normalisation agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, while Islamabad, which is at the forefront of efforts to make peace between Iran and the US, has often attempted to be a bridge between the Gulf Cooperation Council and Tehran. The role of Beijing and Islamabad as mediators and peace facilitators in the current conflict has enhanced their strategic utility in the eyes of both the Global South and the major powers.

At a time when the international system is undergoing a profound transformation, with intensified great power competition and the proliferation of armed hostilities in various regions, the expectation that regional and rising powers will assume greater responsibility in conflict management, mediation and the de-escalation of tensions has gained traction. New Delhi, often projected as an emerging regional and global player of importance, is frequently viewed through this lens. Yet, its consistent reluctance to assume the role of a proactive peace-broker reveals that India is a long distance away from credibly asserting itself as an influential global actor. In fact, New Delhi’s global posture continues to project ambition but without a corresponding strategic assertiveness.

The writer is a strategic analyst of international security. The views expressed are his own.

X: @itskhurramabbas

Published in Dawn, April 18th, 2026

if you want to get more information about this news then click on below link

More Detail