Two southern Chief Ministers—Kerala’s Pinarayi Vijayan and Tamil Nadu’s M.K. Stalin—have crossed a constitutional red line by issuing public statements on India’s foreign policy. In a federal democracy like India, foreign affairs are exclusively a matter for the Union Government. While state leaders may privately express disagreement, going public with condemnations—especially on sensitive international matters—is not only irresponsible but dangerous. Their recent outbursts against Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are nothing short of reckless.
Can a mayor of Los Angeles or Philadelphia criticize the U.S. President’s foreign policy on international platforms? Not. The American system would never tolerate such undiplomatic freelancing. Similarly, the Indian Constitution clearly defines the scope of responsibilities for state governments, and foreign policy is strictly a Union subject.
So why did Pinarayi Vijayan call Israel’s Prime Minister a “global thug”? And what prompted Stalin to echo similar sentiments? One can’t help but note the irony: neither of these leaders has a strong command of any language other than their native tongues, Malayalam and Tamil, respectively, let alone the geo-strategic lexicon required to understand international diplomacy. It’s absurd to assume either possesses any meaningful grasp of the complexities shaping today’s shifting global order.
Let’s be frank—this is not about global conscience or moral outrage. It’s about domestic political posturing, rooted in appeasement politics and ideological compulsions. Both the DMK and CPI(M) have a long history of pandering to vote banks by taking anti-Western, anti-Israel positions under the guise of solidarity with “oppressed” people. But this is 2025, not the Cold War era.
India’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, steered ably by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, has undergone a fundamental transformation. From being sidelined and often snubbed on the global stage, India is now a respected voice, firm, confident, and independent. Modi and Jaishankar have pursued a clear-eyed strategy: befriending like-minded nations, isolating rogue players like Pakistan, and standing up to expansionist regimes like China.
Israel remains one of India’s most critical strategic partners in defence, counter-terrorism, and high-tech collaboration. Unlike the past, where governments flip-flopped under international pressure or Nehruvian romanticism of “non-alignment,” the Modi government has taken an unambiguous stance. It recognizes that supporting Israel in its fight against terrorism is not just morally correct—it aligns with India’s fight against Islamist extremism and cross-border terror.
Contrast this with Indira Gandhi’s infamous embrace of PLO leaders, including Yasser Arafat, whom she called a “brother.” The Congress era foreign policy was soaked in ambiguity, driven more by personal affinities and ideological tilt toward Islamic nations than national interest.
Pinarayi Vijayan and Stalin would do well to focus on their own backyards. Vijayan is battling corruption scandals within the Left Democratic Front and a governance model crumbling under its own contradictions. Stalin, despite his swagger, continues to preside over a state riddled with electricity shortages, cronyism, and rising lawlessness.
As for foreign policy, leave it to the professionals. Not understanding global diplomacy is excusable; meddling in it is not.
Their behaviour also reflects a deeper malaise within the Indian opposition: a desperate attempt to counter the Modi government by any means, even if it comes at the cost of national interest. From criticising India’s Middle East outreach to echoing anti-India rhetoric peddled by foreign think tanks and media, the opposition is no longer playing the role of a constructive challenger. It is playing into the hands of India’s detractors.
In times of global conflict, India must speak with one voice. Disagreements can remain internal. But irresponsible statements by state leaders that contradict national positions send a message of division and confusion to the world. And that weakens India’s global standing.
The foreign policy of a sovereign democracy cannot be dictated by parochial minds or provincial compulsions. Let Chief Ministers stay in their lanes—and let India speak as one.
