• S. K. Nigam

The escalating war in West Asia, the looming threat over the Strait of Hormuz, and growing concerns about India’s energy security have created an atmosphere of anxiety across the world today. For a country like India, this crisis is no longer just a matter of foreign policy; it has become directly connected to the kitchen of the common citizen, the farmer’s field, employment, transportation, and everyday life. India is the world’s third-largest importer of crude oil and depends on foreign countries for nearly 85 percent of its total crude oil requirement. In the case of natural gas as well, India relies on imports for more than 50 percent of its consumption. According to data from the Ministry of Petroleum and international energy agencies, India imports more than five million barrels of crude oil every single day, a large share of which comes from Gulf nations. Countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran have for decades formed the backbone of India’s energy needs. Most importantly, nearly 30 to 35 percent of the world’s total seaborne oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and a major portion of the oil and LPG reaching India also travels through this route. That is why as soon as the Iran-Israel conflict intensified and fears of disruption or closure of the Strait of Hormuz emerged, panic spread not only across India but throughout global markets. Oil prices began rising sharply, maritime insurance costs surged, and international trading companies started warning that if the war prolonged, the global supply chain could collapse. International organizations and media outlets such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and The Wall Street Journal continuously published reports warning that if the Strait of Hormuz remained disrupted for an extended period, Asian economies would suffer the most serious consequences and India could face a severe economic shock.

India’s situation is particularly sensitive because the country’s demand for energy is growing rapidly while domestic production remains extremely limited. Over the last decade, the consumption of petroleum products in India has nearly doubled. The number of LPG consumers alone has increased from around 140 million in 2014 to nearly 330 million by 2026. This means that even a minor disruption in LPG supply directly impacts the kitchens of hundreds of millions of households. Similarly, diesel is considered the backbone of India’s transportation and agricultural systems. From trucks to tractors, most transportation and farming activities in the country depend heavily on diesel. In such a scenario, a rise in diesel prices does not merely mean higher fuel costs at petrol pumps; it results in the inflation of almost every commodity and service. Following the escalation of war and regional tensions, the international price of Brent Crude surged within days from nearly 78 dollars per barrel to close to 100 dollars per barrel. Experts estimate that if prices remain consistently above the 100-dollar mark, India’s import bill could increase by several lakh crore rupees. This would place additional pressure on the Indian rupee, impact foreign exchange reserves, and push inflation to new heights. The Reserve Bank of India and several economic institutions have also warned that every 10-dollar rise in oil prices could reduce India’s GDP growth rate by approximately 0.3 to 0.5 percent.

Against this backdrop, the opposition has consistently raised questions about the government’s foreign policy. Over the past few years, a perception has developed that the Indian government moved significantly closer to the United States and Israel while relations with long-standing partners such as Iran weakened. The opposition alleges that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel and his public display of closeness with the Israeli leadership immediately before the outbreak of war sent a signal very different from India’s traditional policy of diplomatic balance. For decades, India followed a non-aligned strategic approach, maintaining equilibrium between the United States, Russia, Iran, Arab countries, and Western powers. However, the perception gradually strengthened that India had openly tilted toward the American bloc. This is precisely why, when war intensified in West Asia, maintaining diplomatic balance became increasingly difficult for India. Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi repeatedly warned in Parliament and public rallies that India should not reduce energy security and foreign policy to mere tools of publicity and event management. Rahul Gandhi stated that distancing India from its old energy partners would directly affect the pockets of ordinary Indian citizens. He also argued that while the world was moving toward war and economic uncertainty, the government appeared more focused on image-building and grand public events rather than on addressing real challenges. Today, as the oil and gas crisis deepens, these warnings by Rahul Gandhi shows evidence of his political foresight and long-term understanding of geopolitical realities.

During this entire crisis, several developments also emerged that affected both India’s international image and domestic politics. For instance, while global markets were experiencing turbulence because of war-related fears, television channels in India were simultaneously broadcasting visuals of Prime Minister Modi’s foreign visits and grand events organized by the Indian diaspora abroad. Massive crowds, huge stadium gatherings, chants of “Modi-Modi,” and elaborate cultural programs were presented by government supporters as symbols of India’s growing global influence. Yet all of this was happening at a time when ordinary Indians were struggling with rising prices of petrol, diesel, and cooking gas. The opposition accused the government of trying to conceal a domestic economic crisis through applause on foreign stages and highly publicized welcome ceremonies. Meanwhile, a question raised by a Norwegian journalist drew global attention. The journalist asked Prime Minister Modi why he appeared reluctant to face questions from an independent press and what he had to say about growing concerns regarding critical journalism in India. Following the question, the atmosphere on stage reportedly became uncomfortable, and the video spread rapidly across social media. The opposition described the episode as embarrassing for India’s democratic image. Reacting to the incident, Rahul Gandhi remarked that “the world saw the Prime Minister’s nervousness.” Several international newspapers and television networks highlighted the incident prominently and questioned why a country that calls itself the world’s largest democracy appeared so uneasy with critical questioning. The controversy intensified further after a press conference held by officials of India’s Ministry of External Affairs. Critics argued that the officials appeared highly defensive and arrogant. Instead of responding clearly to journalists’ questions, they allegedly attempted to avoid or deflect them. As a result, an international perception began forming that the Indian government had become so sensitive about its image that it was unable to comfortably accept difficult or critical questions.

In reality, the greatest challenge before India today is not merely an oil crisis or a foreign policy crisis, but the challenge of maintaining the trust of its own people. The true strength of any democracy is not determined solely by applause on foreign stages, grand events, or televised spectacles; it is determined by how secure, respected, and economically stable ordinary citizens feel within their own country. If unemployment continues to rise, inflation keeps climbing, gas cylinders move beyond the reach of common households, insecurity among the youth deepens, and farmers struggle under the burden of rising diesel prices, then no amount of foreign tours or publicity campaigns can conceal the crisis indefinitely. The biggest political question in India today is whether the government will learn from criticism and reassess its foreign policy and energy strategy, or whether it will continue relying primarily on image management and public relations to present the situation as normal. Because ultimately, the true evaluation of any government is not made through applause from overseas audiences, but through the condition of people’s kitchens, the struggles of farmers, the employment of young people, and the daily realities faced by ordinary citizens across the country.

The author is a Political Analyst