India's recent vote against a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution condemning Iran's crackdown on protestors has sparked debate over the country's foreign policy direction. Despite global outrage at the Iranian regime's violent suppression of dissent, including the killing of thousands of demonstrators, India chose to oppose the resolution, drawing praise from Iran but criticism from observers who question the moral and strategic logic behind the decision.

The move has been interpreted as a continuation of India's longstanding approach of non-alignment, now reframed as 'strategic autonomy.' Critics argue that this policy, rooted in anti-Western sentiment, risks aligning India with regimes like those in Iran, Pakistan, and China, potentially undermining its own national interests and moral standing.

While some officials defend the vote as a safeguard against international scrutiny of India's own internal affairs, others point out that abstention would have been a more neutral option, as India has done in other conflicts. The decision reflects the enduring influence of Nehruvian principles in India's foreign policy, even under governments that claim to reject them.