LPG crisis exposes policy confusion, administrative gaps

India’s policy on the West Asia war appears confused. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s conversation with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday only underlined this perception. Just before hostilities began — when conflict seemed imminent — Modi visited Israel, signalling New Delhi’s sympathies with Tel Aviv.

The discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resulted in the elevation of bilateral relations to a “Special Strategic Partnership,” making India’s tilt toward the United States–Israel alliance apparent.

When military operations by the duo led to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several members of the ruling establishment, India merely condoled his death but stopped short of condemning the attack.

This stance aligned with the growing strategic convergence between India and Israel over the years. Ties between the two countries have expanded beyond defence procurement to include joint research, technology partnerships, and counter-terrorism cooperation.

However, on Thursday, Modi spoke with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian to discuss the escalating war in West Asia. “Had a conversation with Iranian President Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian to discuss the serious situation in the region.

Expressed deep concern over the escalation of tensions and the loss of civilian lives as well as damage to civilian infrastructure,” Modi said on X.

New Delhi is also reportedly negotiating with Tehran for safe passage for Indian-flagged merchant vessels — 28 of which are stranded in the region — through the Strait of Hormuz.

The developments have raised several questions. Why did India visibly tilt towards the United States–Israel alliance if it had to recalibrate later? Given New Delhi’s growing proximity to Tel Aviv and Washington, why did the Prime Minister visit Israel at a time when war with Iran seemed imminent?

It was evident that any conflict in the Middle East would strain fossil fuel supplies from the region. Why, then, did the government fail to prepare for possible shortages, particularly of LPG?

Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Hardeep Singh Puri told the Lok Sabha that procurement had been diversified. “Cargoes have been secured from the United States, Norway, Canada, Algeria and Russia, in addition to available Gulf sources,” he said.

That sounds reassuring, but why was this information not communicated clearly to the public earlier? Why was the issue allowed to grow into a crisis in public perception, triggering panic buying, long queues, and even black marketing?

The ongoing crisis will likely be remembered for confusion at the top and ineptitude at the lower levels of administration. Supply chain management, public communication, and local enforcement mechanisms all appeared to falter at crucial moments.

Instead of reassuring citizens and ensuring orderly distribution of essential commodities, authorities often reacted only after panic had already set in.

Crises often expose the strengths and weaknesses of governance systems. In this case, the episode has highlighted confusion in diplomatic strategy, economic preparedness, and domestic administration.

India must learn from this experience. Strategic partnerships are important, but so is maintaining diplomatic balance.

Equally vital is the government’s ability to anticipate economic shocks and communicate effectively with the public. Without these elements, even well-intentioned policies can falter.

If the lessons from this episode are not absorbed, future geopolitical or economic disruptions could produce similar scenes of confusion at the top and disorder on the ground — a far greater failure than any single diplomatic misstep.