Why India Stayed Out Of SCO’s Condemnation Of Israel’s Strikes On Iran

India’s silence speaks to its tradition. It does not necessarily indicate support or opposition.

New Delhi: When the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) issued a strong statement condemning Israel’s recent military actions in Iran, there was one country that chose to stay silent. And that nation was India.

The decision caught attention, especially since the rest of the group, which includes China, Russia and several Central Asian nations, had spoken in one voice. The situation has sparked questions over why New Delhi kept its distance, and what factors might be shaping that choice.

Israel continues to carry out a series of attacks targeting Iranian cities, military zones and nuclear facilities. Tehran is responding with missile strikes. The exchange has left hundreds of dead in Iran, including senior military personnel and civilians.

As the violence escalated, the SCO released a joint message criticising Israel's actions – calling them a threat to international stability. The statement described the strikes as violations of international law and expressed support for a diplomatic resolution.

India, however, chose not to sign the document or be part of its preparation.

Where India Stands

India’s Ministry of External Affairs responded separately. In its statement, it urged both sides to exercise restraint and return to dialogue. It also said that New Delhi is monitoring developments closely and is concerned about any escalation, especially those involving nuclear infrastructure.

India made it clear that it maintains good relations with both countries and would be willing to help bring down tensions.

This position is consistent with what India has said before. In a call with Iran’s foreign minister, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar conveyed concern and called for diplomacy. However, India did not directly criticise either party.

A Careful Position

India’s silence on the SCO statement was not accidental. Unlike other member states, it has ties on both sides of this conflict.

Israel has been a major defence partner. India buys a large amount of military hardware from Israel and has shared intelligence links. At the same time, Iran has been an important energy partner, and the two countries have worked closely on the development of Chabahar Port – a strategic gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

This dual engagement places India in a sensitive spot. A public alignment with either side could strain ties with the other.

India has invested heavily in the Chabahar Port project. This port is critical to India’s regional plans, especially to trade with Afghanistan while bypassing Pakistan. However, renewed U.S. sanctions on Iran have complicated these efforts.

India had earlier secured a waiver from Washington to continue work on Chabahar, but the return of the Trump administration has changed the picture. New restrictions could put Indian investments at risk.

Meanwhile, Israel remains one of India’s key security partners. The two countries have increased defence cooperation in recent years, and there are ongoing joint projects in missiles, drones and surveillance systems.

Inside the SCO

India’s reluctance to join the SCO statement may also reflect the internal dynamics of the organisation. While the SCO includes countries like China and Russia, both of which are closer to Tehran, India’s alignment has increasingly moved toward Western democracies.

Analysts say that India, while part of the SCO, often finds itself in a different position on major issues compared to some of the bloc's dominant members.

Just before the SCO issued its statement, India also abstained from a UN General Assembly vote calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. That move too raised eyebrows.

Some experts believe India’s choice at the United Nations was shaped by its broader foreign policy goals, including a pending trade deal with the United States. A closer relationship with Washington could mean keeping a distance from positions that are seen as strongly pro-Iran or anti-Israel.

No Simple Answers

India’s foreign policy has long been based on keeping channels open with all major players. Whether it is the United Stated and Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia or Israel and Palestine, New Delhi has avoided taking sides publicly, preferring to work through quiet diplomacy.

In this case, India’s silence speaks to that tradition. It does not necessarily indicate support or opposition. Instead, it appears to be a reflection of New Delhi’s attempt to protect its interests in a volatile region without burning bridges.