Foreign policy belongs in Parliament, not Modi’s campaign trail

Modi’s rally remarks reveal how electoral compulsions are overshadowing Parliament’s role as the custodian of democratic dialogue in times of crisis

In moments of grave international crisis, nations look toward their leadership for moral clarity and institutional responsibility. Democracies have evolved certain conventions about how such clarity is communicated. When the world appears uncertain and conflicts escalate, the expectation is that governments will turn first to the institutions that embody the collective sovereignty of the people. In India’s case, that institution is Parliament. Yet the recent response of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the unfolding conflict in West Asia raises troubling questions about how these democratic norms are being observed.

On March 11, 11 days after the United States and Israel attacked Iran, Modi finally spoke on the escalating tensions in West Asia. However, the venue chosen for this long-awaited intervention was not the floor of Parliament, not a diplomatic briefing, and not even a carefully structured address to the nation. Instead, it was at an election rally in Ernakulam, Kerala. In itself, the location might appear incidental, yet it is difficult to ignore the possibility that similar interventions may find their way into other election-bound states of Tamil Nadu, Assam, or West Bengal, where political mobilisation is already underway. In parliamentary democracies, the context in which political authority chooses to speak often carries as much meaning as the words themselves.

Institutions are not merely procedural sites; they are symbolic spaces where authority acquires legitimacy. When a government addresses the nation through Parliament, it signals that matters of foreign policy and international conflict transcend electoral cycles, and partisan contestation. When such statements migrate to the theatre of electoral rallies, the line between statesmanship and campaign rhetoric blurs in ways that are neither institutionally reassuring nor diplomatically prudent.

Historically, when issues of international conflict and war arise, the first forum of deliberation has been the legislature. From the British House of Commons to India’s Parliament, the convention has been that the executive presents its position before elected representatives. Such moments are expressions of democratic accountability. They allow the government to explain its assessment of the situation, articulate the principles guiding its foreign policy, and respond to the anxieties of the Opposition and the public alike.

India’s parliamentary history offers instructive precedents. During moments of international tension, from the wars of 1965 and 1971 to crises in West Asia and Afghanistan, prime ministers and external affairs ministers addressed Parliament first. These statements were often followed by debates where members articulated concerns, offered suggestions, and even expressed dissent. Such debates were not seen as weakening the nation’s position; rather, they strengthened it by demonstrating that India’s foreign policy was anchored in democratic deliberation rather than executive fiat.

It is precisely for this reason that the recent sequence of events appears disquieting. Parliament has repeatedly been adjourned amid demands for clarity regarding India’s position on West Asian developments. Members have raised questions about the humanitarian implications, the stability of the Gulf region, and the broader geopolitical ramifications for India’s strategic and economic interests. The executive response has remained limited and curiously opaque.

When Modi finally addressed the issue (on March 11), the aggressor and the aggrieved remained conspicuously unnamed. Instead, the Opposition was accused of spreading panic and fear. The irony is difficult to overlook, because at a moment that demanded sobriety in foreign policy and clarity in moral language, the discourse was pulled back into the familiar terrain of domestic partisan contestation. Election rallies are arenas of political mobilisation where the grammar is adversarial, their rhetoric sharp, and their objective electoral. Parliamentary forums, by contrast, are designed to temper rhetoric with deliberation and accountability.

This distinction matters because foreign policy operates simultaneously on two planes. At one level, it addresses international actors: States, institutions, and global public opinion. At another, it reassures the domestic public that the nation’s interests are being articulated with both prudence and principle inherited from the past. When leaders speak about international crises primarily through the idiom of domestic political combat, the boundary between these two blurs.

There is also a deeper institutional concern. Parliamentary democracy is not sustained merely by constitutional provisions; it is sustained by conventions; unwritten norms that guide how power is exercised. One such convention is that the executive remains accountable to Parliament, especially on matters that carry significant implications for national security and international relations. When that convention weakens, the consequences extend beyond any single controversy. Over time, the legislature risks being reduced from a forum of deliberation to a spectator of executive decision-making.

Therefore, current events invite a broader reflection on how India’s democratic institutions respond to global crises. Today, conflicts in one region have cascading effects on energy markets, diaspora communities, and diplomatic alignments. For India, with its deep economic and strategic ties across West Asia, such developments cannot be treated as distant spectacles. They demand careful articulation of national interests, humanitarian concerns, and diplomatic principles.

In such circumstances, Parliament ought to function as the primary arena where anxieties are articulated, and differences debated with sobriety. When the government explains its position before elected representatives, it does more than merely respond to the Opposition; it strengthens democratic legitimacy, and reassures the world that India’s foreign policy is anchored in institutional consultation.

Historically, one of the quiet strengths of India’s diplomacy has been precisely this perception; that beyond the noise of partisan contestation, there exists a broad national commitment to certain principles of international engagement. It is in this light that Modi’s decision to speak at an election rally assumes deeper significance. It risks reinforcing the perception that foreign policy discourse is gradually drifting away from the framework of parliamentary accountability. When electoral compulsions begin to overshadow the responsibility of articulating ethical clarity on global questions, the language of diplomacy risks being absorbed into the rhetoric of domestic political contest.

The point here is not about protocol alone, but about the spirit of a parliamentary democracy. Moments of international crisis require a certain institutional gravitas, a willingness to speak not merely as the leader of a political formation, but as the custodian of a constitutional office accountable to the nation through Parliament. When such moments are relocated to electoral platforms, the signal that travels outward is one of shrinking deliberative space within the republic’s democratic architecture.

Therefore, this is also a moment for a gentle yet firm reminder that democracy is not only about winning elections. It is about nurturing institutions that allow the nation to deliberate collectively, especially in times of uncertainty. In times of war and conflict abroad, the strength of a parliamentary system lies precisely in its ability to transform anxiety into dialogue, and power into accountability. If those spaces of dialogue are bypassed, the loss is not only institutional, but also moral.

Manoj Kumar Jha is an RJD leader, Member of the Rajya Sabha, and the author of ‘In Praise of Coalition Politics and Other Essays on Indian Democracy’.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.