In the intricate landscape of international politics, diplomacy is not merely the name of statements and meetings, but reflects the dignity of states, strategy, and long-term interests. The recent Iran war and the global alignments surrounding it have once again made clear which countries are playing a serious diplomatic role and which have been forced, due to internal weaknesses and their diplomatic isolation, to adopt a repulsive and diplomatically unacceptable narrative. In this context, India’s role not only appears humiliating but also reflects a clear retreat of the Indian government at the diplomatic level, which is no longer a hidden fact.
In the Iran war, while countries like Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey have become active and are on the path to proving themselves as reliable mediators, India practically appears outside this entire scenario. This situation is not merely coincidental; behind it lies a long-standing narrative rooted in the hatred-filled, toxic contradictions of the RSS and an unbalanced foreign strategy. To play an effective role in any international conflict, it is essential that the concerned state is trusted by the parties, but India has repeatedly failed to meet this basic requirement.
The recent statement by Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar and the highly inappropriate language used against Pakistan reflect this diplomatic failure, whereas a responsible diplomat is expected to use very measured and civilized language. However, the unparliamentary and vulgar language he employed during the all-parties meeting not only affected his personal dignity but also raised questions about India’s state significance. The most important question was whether this statement came from the Indian foreign minister himself or if some two-penny RSS thug roaming Indian streets tried to abuse Pakistan? In diplomacy, the choice of words is not merely a linguistic matter but also reflects the direction of foreign policy and the mental state, and here panic was clearly evident.
This panic is actually the result of the wider isolation India has faced in recent times. The energy crisis, regional disputes, and changing global priorities have placed India in a difficult position due to its own policies. Its failure to maintain balanced relations with an important regional player like Iran has further compounded India’s difficulties. That is why, when the mediation process came up, preference was given to other countries rather than including India, even though India considered itself very close to Iran and has benefited from this proximity.
In the context of the Iran war, Article 2, sub-article 4 of the UN Charter emerges as a fundamental principle, which prevents states from using force against one another. However, when this principle is violated, responses also arise within the framework of international law. Iran, under this principle, exercised its right of defense provided in Article 51 to respond to Israeli and American attacks, highlighting that international laws are not merely theoretical but also have practical significance.
If diplomacy is based on cunning, deceit, and temporary interests rather than integrity, transparency, and principles, its outcome is nothing but global and diplomatic isolation. The international community does not tolerate such behavior for long, and when a state’s true face is exposed to the world, its credibility rapidly declines. Leadership that declares Israel as its “fatherland” and openly shows bias in global conflicts cannot be accepted as a neutral mediator at the international level. That is why such a narrative has not only weakened India’s diplomatic claims but also presented it as an unserious and biased party globally. The approach adopted under Narendra Modi’s leadership ultimately led to retreat on the global stage.
It is also noteworthy that success in diplomacy is not achieved merely through statements; it requires consistency, confidence-building, transparency, and principled positions. When a state’s foreign policy becomes subject to internal political narratives or temporary interests, the results are usually negative. India’s current situation reflects this reality.
Undoubtedly, the current regional and global conditions have drawn a clear line: on one side are countries playing their role through serious, balanced, and principled diplomacy, and on the other side, looking at India’s example, are states that, due to panic, contradictions, and uncivilized narratives, are pushing themselves toward isolation.
The future global landscape will certainly revolve around these principles, where transparency, trust, and seriousness, as exemplified by Pakistan, will form the basis of successful diplomacy, and by applying these fundamental principles, paths for resolving issues with Iran, the US, and Israel can also be paved.
