History rarely remembers the obedient. It remembers those who resisted domination. Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the revolutionary leadership of Iran—from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to Ayatollah Khamenei—stand centuries apart, yet belong to the same psychological tradition of defiance. Both confronted powers vastly superior in military, financial, and diplomatic strength. Both knew the imbalance. Both understood the consequences. And yet, neither chose submission.
Tipu Sultan fell in 1799, defending Srirangapatna against the British colonial machine. He could have signed away autonomy under a subsidiary alliance. He did not. He chose sovereignty over survival. Iran, after 1979, could have recalibrated itself into a compliant regional actor under Western security architecture. It did not. It chose autonomy over integration.
This is not a comparison of theology or governance structures. It is a comparison of posture. It is the doctrine of refusal. And that doctrine unsettles empires.
The United States presents itself as the guardian of global order—a self-appointed referee in a game it also plays. It sanctions governments, isolates leaders, recognises oppositions, redraws alliances, and, when necessary, deploys force.
But one fundamental question must be asked: Who granted Washington the moral franchise to define democracy for the world? Is American democracy the universal blueprint? Is every deviation a threat? Is every non-aligned state inherently unstable?
Modern geopolitics reveals a troubling pattern. Before a nation is pressured or attacked, it is narratively prepared for correction. It is labelled authoritarian, destabilising, irrational, oppressive. The moral groundwork precedes the coercion. The script is familiar: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Each intervention was framed as liberation. Each left structural devastation in its wake. Iran observes this history, and it refuses to become the next chapter.
Let us bring this closer to home. Imagine Americans landing in India and declaring that saris, pallus, and head coverings are instruments of female oppression. Imagine foreign diplomats lecturing us that cultural modesty equals repression. Would Indians accept that? Absolutely not. We would call it what it is—civilisational arrogance.
Now, extend the analogy. Suppose international observers claim electoral irregularities—vote-chori, democratic erosion, institutional compromise. Would it then be acceptable for America to impose sanctions? To threaten intervention in the name of “restoring democracy”? To freeze Indian assets and destabilise our currency? Would Indians tolerate foreign armies arriving in Delhi, claiming to save our Constitution? The answer is self-evident.
Sovereignty means correcting ourselves, not being corrected by foreign armies. If we reject intervention in our cultural practices and electoral processes, by what logic do we endorse it elsewhere? This is the intellectual inconsistency that must be confronted.
When the British outlawed practices in India, they framed it as moral reform. They spoke of civilisation, enlightenment, and rationality. But behind the rhetoric was the consolidation of power. Every empire first writes a story. Power enters only after the story is believed.
Today, similar language appears in a modernised form: “Human rights,” “democratic norms,” “stability.” These are not meaningless phrases, but they are not neutral either. They can be instruments. Iran’s governance model, social codes, and legal structures are for Iranians to debate and evolve. External imposition does not produce liberation; it produces backlash. Tipu Sultan understood this instinctively. Sovereignty surrendered under moral pressure is still surrender.
The Oil Chessboard and the economics behind ideals! Geopolitics rarely operates on ideals alone. Energy markets remain central to global power architecture. Oil is not merely fuel; it is leverage. Consider the arithmetic often cited in strategic discussions: At $25-30 per barrel, certain large reserves are valued at trillions. If global instability drives prices upward to $150 or $200, valuation multiples change dramatically. Energy scarcity reshapes fiscal calculations.
Now, this does not mean every conflict is engineered for price manipulation. That would be simplistic. But it would be equally naive to assume economic consequences are irrelevant to strategic decision-making. Wars in oil-rich regions reverberate through energy markets. Energy markets affect national debt, trade balances, inflation, and political stability.
Assume the Americans and the Israelis were against dictatorial rule. In America, in the last few decades, who gets to the top slot? Bush, Clinton, Trump—the same political families and networks rotate through power. Any new face is clearly subdued. Can we assume their democracy is known for rotational power for dictatorial families? Would they accept this charge, if I may construe, against them? Then, how are they better than the Iranian rulers or the supreme leader?
A nation carrying over $39 trillion in debt, incapable of handling itself and its economy—can they send gospels to the world about how to conduct ourselves?
And here, the oil arithmetic becomes impossible to ignore. America invaded Venezuela. Took over the oil reserves. Installed a government that could be a proxy American president. If the Venezuelan crude were sold at the price of the Middle Eastern or Russian crude, how can America make money? They had to close the Strait of Hormuz. There was no other option.
Imagine, if the crude prices spiral from between $25-30 per barrel; what would a reserve of $18 trillion of Venezuela be worth at $130+ per barrel? America can wipe off its entire debt in a matter of two years. This war was necessary. Not to give a better life to Iranians. It was needed to clear the American debt. When prices spike, the average Indian pays. India, as a major energy importer, feels this immediately at the fuel pump. It is therefore not irresponsible to question whether prolonged instability benefits certain economic structures while burdening others.
Sanctions are often marketed as alternatives to war. In reality, they are war by economic means. In practice, they are economic siege tactics. Before the most severe rounds of nuclear-related sanctions intensified in the early 2010s, Iran maintained one of the larger economies in West Asia, supported by oil exports, manufacturing, agriculture, and services. Restrictions targeting oil exports and banking channels reduced foreign exchange earnings and contributed to currency depreciation and inflation.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) temporarily eased some restrictions in 2015. The subsequent withdrawal of the United States in 2018 reimposed pressure, again constraining oil sales and financial transactions. Economic pain was not accidental. It was the instrument. Sanctions aim to create internal dissatisfaction strong enough to force policy change without invasion.
But history shows a paradox: prolonged pressure often strengthens hardline resilience rather than dismantling it. Iran adapted through domestic substitution, alternative trade channels, and strategic partnerships. Economic strangulation did not produce surrender.
Whether my writing corrects the record or their forwards continue to distort it may not immediately change India’s policy, but facts deserve a footprint somewhere. Even lies deserve a coffin—if only so truth may breathe above ground.
One more aspect of Iran’s demonisation in our country. A lot of sanghi and RSS forwards are creating an image of Iran, depicting them as being monstrous. But the most repeated claim about Iran in India is also the most intellectually lazy one. It is fashionable in certain Indian circles to contrast ancient Persia’s scholarly glory with modern Iran’s supposed decline. This narrative is shallow.
Since 1979, Iran has:
Expanded literacy dramatically.
Increased university enrolment.
Produced significant scientific research output in engineering, chemistry, and medicine.
Developed domestic pharmaceutical capacity.
Advanced missile and satellite technologies.
Built industrial and petrochemical infrastructure.
Gained global recognition in cinema and cultural production.
Women participate extensively in higher education. Many universities have women heading departments or are Deans of institutes. Trump declared cheaply of ‘the bedsheet’ (referring to the burqa or the hijab) over the body can be removed now, now that Khamenei is gone! Someone needs to remind him: nudity is not liberation. It simply means objectifying them. It often reduces them to a commodity. If objectifying and commoditising women were empowerment, Epstein should be the undisputed President of the World. He ran the network, worldwide!
Iran is not a failed state. It is not merely an oil pump with clerical leadership. It is a sanctioned, technologically active middle power navigating constraints. To dismiss Iran as backward is not analysis; it is ideological comfort. And why does this positioning persist? Because making another civilisation appear small allows us to feel larger than we are. That is shortsighted.
Civilisations are complex organisms. They contain contradictions. India itself is technologically ambitious yet socially challenged, democratic yet polarised, ancient yet modern. We demand nuance for ourselves. We deny it to others.
Colonial administrations once produced reports framing resistance as barbarism. Today, media framing influences how international audiences interpret unrest. But propaganda does not operate only through governments. It travels through information systems. Media as a weapon: a narrative before action. In modern conflict, perception precedes policy. Casualty figures circulate rapidly. At times they are verified; at times they are estimates; at times they are contested. Headlines travel faster than corrections. Information ecosystems amplify emotional content. Algorithms reward outrage. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is structural media reality. Governments communicate strategically. Advocacy groups communicate strategically. Oppositions communicate strategically.
In such an environment, the citizen’s duty is scepticism—not denial, but disciplined scepticism. And here is where perception begins to overpower reality.
I wish to conclude by saying the old adage: ‘jo dikhega, wahi bikega.’ We can use this effectively in this situation. What we hear of the so-called atrocities of the Iranian regime against its citizens is a perception sold wildly over the shelves, across the world. If oppression were as absolute as portrayed, a society of 90 million people would not remain silent. Again, the sold theory is that those who revolted were killed, some 30,000 of them. Who counted? Who informed of this? That is the interesting side of this war.
India’s conflicted position reflects its relationships across the geopolitical spectrum:
Strategic cooperation with Israel.
Economic and defence engagement with the United States.
Energy and connectivity interests with Iran.
Diaspora and trade ties across the Gulf.
This is strategic autonomy in practice. However, public discourse often reduces complex diplomacy into binary alignments. When high-level visits coincide with regional tensions, speculation flourishes. Transparency in democratic systems is essential, but speculation must remain evidence-based. India’s strength lies in balancing, not bandwagoning.
History provides several examples of how states under pressure respond when confronted by stronger powers.
Case studies in resistance
Tipu’s Rocket Innovation: Tipu Sultan’s forces employed advanced rocketry against British troops—an example of technological adaptation under asymmetry. Innovation becomes necessity when resources are limited.
The Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988): Iran endured eight years of brutal conflict, including chemical attacks by Iraq. Despite isolation and limited external support, it did not collapse. Its resilience under sustained military pressure echoes Mysore’s determination against British encirclement.
Iran’s Indigenous Development: Under sanctions, Iran expanded domestic production in pharmaceuticals, defence systems, and energy infrastructure. Isolation stimulated internal capacity building.
U.S. Interventions in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan: Each intervention was justified rhetorically through democracy or humanitarian language. Each resulted in prolonged instability. Iran’s resistance must be understood against this backdrop: the determination not to become another externally redesigned state.
Sovereignty is a Non-Negotiable Principle! At its core, this debate is not about endorsing every policy of Iran or romanticizing confrontation. It is about a principle. Sovereignty cannot be conditional.
If India rejects foreign interference in its elections, culture, and governance, intellectual integrity requires consistency when evaluating other nations. Tipu Sultan’s refusal was not about victory; it was about dignity. Iran’s refusal is not about perfection; it is about autonomy. Submission may bring temporary economic relief, but it reshapes national psychology permanently. Resistance carries costs—but it preserves agency.
Whoever controls the narrative decides who is called a terrorist and who is called a liberator. In India, we often repeat sweeping claims about who controls institutions—Brahmins controlling media, Jains controlling business, Marwaris controlling money. But credible data doesn’t prove or approve this known fact. Similarly, no one can credibly prove the same about the expansionist regime of Israel. We are not ignorant of the fact that the media is under the control of the Jews. Who spreads such perceptions? Do we need persuasion, or do we simply inherit narratives?
History will debate policies. It will critique decisions. But it will always judge posture. The tiger of Mysore fell, but he did not bow. Iran stands under pressure, but it has not bent. Empires prefer compliant partners. They are unsettled by unbowed actors. In a hierarchical world order, sovereignty is not gifted—it is asserted.
India, with its own colonial memory, must approach global narratives with intellectual discipline. We must question simplifications. We must resist the temptation to elevate ourselves by diminishing others. We must defend the principle we demand for ourselves.
The fire of resistance is not about glorifying conflict. It is about preserving the right to choose one’s path. History does not ask who was comfortable. It asks who remained sovereign. And sovereignty, once surrendered, is rarely returned.
That is the doctrine of refusal. That is the fire that refuses to die.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.
