Best of BS Opinion: Between data and intent, a war redraws India's choices

Here are the best of Business Standard's opinion pieces for today

The idea of purely data-driven decision-making is overstated, writes R Gopalakrishnan in his column. Competing datasets on issues like malnutrition or religious freedom show that numbers can be selective, contested, and shaped by framing. Drawing on Paul Romer’s critique of “mathiness,” he argues that analysis alone rarely settles complex questions. Decision-makers often fall back on intuition, built from experience, but that too is inconsistent and capable of both failure and foresight. What anchors both data and intuition, he suggests, is intent. If intent is flawed, both analysis and judgment get distorted, producing repeat errors. The argument is straightforward: sound decisions depend less on choosing between data and intuition, and more on ensuring the integrity of purpose behind both. 

Meanwhile, Shyam Saran tracks how the US-Israel confrontation with Iran is widening into a systemic crisis. Israel’s long-standing objective of neutralising threats, particularly Iran, is now tied closely to US backing, even as global opinion shifts over Gaza and Lebanon. Iran, facing a conventional disadvantage, is targeting global vulnerabilities like energy routes, Gulf economies, and chokepoints like Hormuz. The result is already visible in rising energy prices, inflationary pressure, and strain within Western alliances. Russia and China stand to gain from the disruption. For India, the risks are more immediate: energy security, diaspora safety, and exposure to regional instability. Saran’s argument is that New Delhi may have to recalibrate its strategic posture as the costs of alignment increase. 

And Devangshu Datta narrows the war down to inventories. Militarily, Iran’s low-cost drones and missiles are matched against expensive interception systems used by the US and Israel. The imbalance means sustainability, not superiority, will decide outcomes. Economically, the more critical inventory is energy. Disruptions to supply routes and infrastructure have tightened global availability, with limited short-term substitutes. He highlights that if reserves deplete before supply stabilises, the impact will cascade across industries and food systems. The uncertainty lies in which side’s resources run out first. For now, the only clear trajectory is higher energy costs and prolonged volatility. 

Finally, Shekhar Gupta argues that reducing India’s current position to a “thank you Trump” moment misses the scale and cost of the crisis. The domestic debate, he notes, is split between claims of strategic success and accusations of compromised autonomy. He dismisses both. India is operating within the limits it always has, as a middle power dependent on multiple partners for energy, defence, and trade. That dependence constrains clear moral or strategic positions across conflicts involving the US, Israel, Iran, Russia, or China. The current response, cautious and non-confrontational, reflects these realities rather than any exceptional shift. If the crisis accelerates self-reliance, that may be a gain, but it would be incidental, not something to credit the conflict for.  Stay tuned!