Every extended family has that one relative at weddings – the man who offers confident advice on everything from the catering to the Constitution.
Nobody asked. Nobody benefits. But the confidence is breathtaking. In Indian politics, the role is increasingly played by Rahul Gandhi.
The latest performance came during the debate on the LPG crisis, where the Leader of Opposition managed to leap from cooking gas shortages to global conspiracies about India being ‘sold to America’ and the Prime Minister being ‘compromised’.
Somewhere in the distance, Middle Eastern geopolitics was also dragged in for good measure. The intellectual bridge between the two remained invisible even with a parliamentary telescope.
The art of missing the point
The immediate issue before Parliament was the LPG supply disruption – a problem affecting millions of households.
This was a ready-made opportunity for the Opposition leader: ask the government tough questions about supply chains, energy security, and price volatility.
Instead, the discussion took an unexpected detour into allegations that India had allowed the United States to attack Iran.
It was an impressive leap of imagination. Even seasoned conspiracy theorists might hesitate before connecting domestic gas shortages with American military operations in the Middle East.
What diplomacy actually looks like
Real foreign policy, unfortunately for television audiences, tends to be dull.
When tensions spiked in the Middle East after strikes involving Iran and its leadership, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar did what diplomats usually do – he spoke to his Iranian counterpart Seyed Abbas Araghchi and conveyed India’s concern about escalation.
India simultaneously maintained engagement with multiple actors in the region and beyond.
Quiet calls, discreet messages, and diplomatic signalling followed. No chest-thumping speeches. No dramatic declarations of allegiance. In other words – diplomacy.
Why shouting ‘pick a side’ is easy
The temptation in domestic politics is to reduce foreign policy to a moral quiz. Whose side are you on? Unfortunately, the world does not operate like a television panel debate.
India has deep stakes across the region: energy imports, millions of Indian workers in Gulf countries, trade flows with Western economies, and strategic ties with multiple powers that do not necessarily get along with one another.
Any government that begins loudly ‘choosing sides’ in such a landscape is not displaying courage. It is displaying recklessness.
A slightly inconvenient reality
India speaks to Iran. It speaks to the US. It maintains ties with Israel while also working closely with Gulf monarchies. These relationships are not contradictions. They are the very definition of modern diplomacy.
Countries with global interests rarely operate through ideological loyalty tests. They operate through overlapping partnerships. This is not particularly glamorous. But it keeps energy flowing, workers safe, and trade moving.
The LoP problem
The real tragedy is not that the Leader of the Opposition criticises the government. That is, after all, his job. The tragedy is that he keeps choosing the least serious way of doing it.
A moment that demanded questions about India’s energy resilience and regional strategy instead produced sweeping accusations about India being ‘compromised’.
Such claims may generate applause on friendly social media timelines. They do very little to illuminate the complexities of foreign policy.
Diplomacy versus performance
International crises are rarely solved by dramatic speeches in Parliament. They are handled through calibrated statements, diplomatic outreach, and a careful balancing of national interests.
It is a slow, often invisible process, which may explain why it struggles to compete with the theatrical style of politics practised by Rahul Gandhi.
After all, quiet strategy rarely goes viral. Freestyle commentary does.
