The American submarine attack on an Iranian warship – returning from a naval exercise in India – off the southern coast of Sri Lanka this week marked a unilateral expansion of the war into India’s backyard. 

At least 87 Iranian sailors were killed, and many are still missing. The Indian Navy confirmed Thursday evening that search and rescue operations are underway, coordinated alongside Sri Lankan authorities. However, the Ministry of External Affairs is yet to issue any statement on the incident.

The legality of the strike off the coast of Sri Lanka is now under scrutiny. According to Article 88 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), international waters are reserved for ‘peaceful purposes’, a status that calls into question the legitimacy of any military engagement in the area. These legal concerns are compounded by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s provocative claim that the US Navy reserves the right to target Iranian vessels anywhere in the world.

Many defence experts, scholars and commentators in India have heavily criticised America for bringing the war to our backyard, even as New Delhi remains mum. And major Indian dailies have echoed this sentiment in their editorials.

The Indian Express

In an editorial headlined ‘West Asia war enters uncharted waters’, the publication argued that the strike had brought the conflict to “India’s doorstep”. Furthermore, it described several facts regarding the targeting of the vessel as “disquieting”.

“The strike occurred thousands of kilometres from the principal theatre of war. Moreover, the Iranian frigate was carrying sailors returning from a naval exercise, the International Fleet Review, in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that the ship was ‘a guest of India’s Navy’. Though a warship, it was on a peaceful passage, and could scarcely have posed a threat thousands of kilometres away,” the editorial noted.

“The Trump administration has included the destruction of Iran’s navy among its war aims. Yet the decision to strike in India’s strategic backyard sits uneasily with the close maritime cooperation that New Delhi and Washington have cultivated in recent years to ensure a free and secure Indo-Pacific. True to his style, the US President appears to have acted unilaterally. The consequences of disrupted shipping lanes in the IOR will also have a widespread impact on countries away from the West Asian theatre,” it added. 

Hindustan Times

In its editorial headlined, 'US’s reckless act that widens Iran war zone', the Hindustan Times noted, “With one ill-thought-out action, the US has recklessly expanded its conflict with Iran and brought it to India’s doorstep.” The editorial also called it “the action of a belligerent power that has no regard for the security concerns of India.”

“The attack was unlawful and an affront to India, especially as the US submarine did not act in self-defence, which would have been permissible under Article 51 of the UN Charter," the editorial noted. Referring to former Indian Navy chief, Admiral Arun Prakash, comments that this was an “senseless and inflammatory act”, the editorial remarked that this attack “opens another dimension of violence in an open-ended conflict and could potentially disrupt seaborne commerce.”

It concluded its scathing criticism with this: “The US should walk its talk about the importance of its partnership with India, and not impetuously imperil the country's national security, even if New Delhi does not voice its protest over the incident.”

The Telegraph

In its editorial headlined, ‘Long Shadow’, the publication noted how “the conflict drew nearer home — quite literally — after a US submarine used a torpedo to sink an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka,” adding that “South Asian nations, including India, might soon need to similarly plead with the warring nations to keep them out of it.”

On the criticism that the Indian government should have done more to ensure the ship's security, it noted: “But the ship was in international waters when it was hit: India could not have done much legally or practically.” Criticism, it argued, was “misplaced”.

The editorial concluded with this to say: “The change in perception in the neighbourhood of the US, from a force of stability to an agent of chaos, is pertinent in this context. Fresh worries loom ahead. Another Iranian ship that participated in the exercises in India is now close to where the Dena was sunk. Its safety in international waters is not India’s responsibility. But with each such strike, the war creeps closer. That is a situation that India must do everything it can to avoid.” 

The Hindu

In its editorial headlined, ‘'West Asia on fire: On the Israeli-American war against Iran', the daily had little to say about the incident except that “the U.S. expanded the theatre of war to the Indian Ocean”. The editorial, however, was more scathing of the larger conflict, which it called “the unprovoked, illegal Israeli-American war against Iran”. 

It called Washington's decision to arm ethnic Kurdish militias in Iran’s northwest to provoke internal unrest a "dangerous game", and that “it appears that Mr. Trump launched the war without an exit strategy.”

“New Delhi, which initially did not condemn the assassination of Khamenei, the leader of a friendly country, should take a more emphatic stand against the war and work with other powers to de-escalate the conflict. India should also strongly oppose U.S. attempts to bring the war to its backyard,” the editorial concluded.

Amar Ujala

In its editorial, the Hindi-language daily has noted that this attack on an Iranian ship, which was part of India's Milaap-2026 exercise, is a significant impetus for India's shift from “vigilant neutrality” to “active regional security.”

“Meanwhile, it is a matter of satisfaction that the government has launched an emergency operation to bring back Indians stranded in Gulf countries, and thousands of Indians have been brought back safely so far. However, the suspension of energy supplies from Qatar and the protracted war have naturally heightened India's concerns,” the editorial noted.

But once again, according to the editorial, Russia has “extended a helping hand, which could prove to be a lifeline for India”. 

“Regarding US resentment, India has already made clear that it will not compromise its strategic interests. Now is the time for India to take cautious diplomatic steps, so as not to burden consumers' pockets or disrupt its fiscal balance,” the editorial claimed.

Times of India 

In its editorial, the Times of India, under the headline 'Gas Panic', expressed greater concern about Qatar's decision to shut down production following an Iranian attack, making it the world's third-largest LNG exporter. The editorial noted that “India is especially affected because it gets 40 percent of its imported LNG from Qatar.”  

“The crisis boils down to price and availability. With contracted supplies unavailable, India must buy in the ‘spot’ market, where prices have hit the roof,” it noted. 

Aside from the impact on the auto industry, the editorial noted that “There’s a parallel crisis of LPG, the older kitchen gas still used by 33cr consumers. India imports 60% of its LPG, mostly from W Asia. So the longer the Iran war lasts, the more households will suffer. Unless the Centre and states absorb increased costs, which is imprudent.”

“Right now, it’s important to tap other gas suppliers, like Australia and Canada, but long-term, we need to scale up biogas production,” it added.

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.