At a time when geopolitical tensions in West Asia are indeed unsettling global energy markets, a curious and telling pattern has emerged within India: the loudest cries of an alleged LPG shortage are emanating almost exclusively from Opposition-ruled states. The question therefore arises—if there is truly a nationwide crisis, why is it geographically selective? The narrative being aggressively pushed by sections of the Opposition, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, bears an uncanny resemblance to the politics of fear that India witnessed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Then too, a relentless campaign was launched to sow doubt, confusion, and panic among citizens. Vaccines were dismissed as “jumlas,” indigenous pharmaceutical capabilities were ridiculed, and the government was urged to import vaccines instead of relying on domestic production. History, however, has delivered a harsh verdict on those claims. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India not only managed one of the world’s largest vaccinations drives but also supplied vaccines to more than 80 countries under its humanitarian outreach. Far from collapsing, the Indian economy remained resilient during the pandemic years. The very critics who mocked India’s capabilities were left scrambling to explain how the so-called “Jumla” turned into one of the largest public health mobilisations in human history. Today, a similar script appears to be unfolding in the energy sector. The ongoing tensions in West Asia and uncertainties around the Strait of Hormuz have naturally triggered speculation about global fuel supplies. Yet speculation is not the same as crisis. The Government of India has repeatedly clarified, including on the floor of Parliament, that the country maintains sufficient reserves of petroleum products to meet domestic demand for at least 45 to 60 days. Oil marketing companies such as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others have also reassured consumers that LPG supplies remain stable, though minor logistical delays may occur in certain pockets. If the supply chain is intact and reserves are comfortable, why then are stories of scarcity suddenly surfacing? The answer may lie less in logistics and more in politics.
Artificial panic serves a purpose. It creates public anxiety, erodes trust in institutions, and allows political actors to weaponize uncertainty. The fear narrative pushed by Rahul Gandhi—suggesting that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could unleash a fuel “tsunami”—fits squarely into this playbook. Alarmist statements without factual grounding do little to help citizens; they merely amplify confusion. What is even more troubling is that these allegations are being repeated despite categorical clarifications from both the government and the oil companies responsible for distribution. Parliament, often described as the “temple of democracy,” has heard these assurances repeatedly. Yet the Opposition continues to circulate claims of an impending crisis. This behaviour reflects a broader pattern visible in recent parliamentary proceedings. The same Opposition that disrupted debates, shouted slogans, and even moved an unsuccessful removal motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla now attempts to shift the narrative by alleging conspiracies in sectors ranging from energy to constitutional institutions. Meanwhile, India’s diplomatic and strategic engagement continues quietly behind the scenes. The government is maintaining communication with all stakeholders in the volatile West Asian theatre while ensuring that domestic energy security remains protected. Unlike the theatrical politics of panic, diplomacy often works best when conducted with calm restraint rather than dramatic declarations. India’s electorate is not naïve. Over the past decade, voters have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to distinguish between genuine crises and politically manufactured ones. Attempts to create a sense of impending doom—whether during the pandemic or now in the energy sector—have increasingly been met with scepticism. In a country of 1.4 billion people, responsible leadership demands facts, not fear; clarity, not conjecture. If there are genuine supply disruptions anywhere, they must certainly be addressed swiftly. But converting isolated logistical delays into a nationwide narrative of collapse is neither responsible politics nor constructive opposition. India deserves debate grounded in reality—not another round of manufactured panic.
