November 25, 2024
India’s balancing act between Israel and Palestine since the war started has shed light on how the former’s foreign policy has evolved particularly in the backdrop of a right-wing government in power in both nations. Notably, despite the current government presenting itself as embracing a new paradigm in foreign policy, scholars have noted that many of the underlying principles driving India’s foreign policy has some level of continuation with history. Although the Hindu right-wing populace has flexed its position in support of Israel in this conflict, the continuity in foreign policy can be seen in India’s position on the current conflict as well.
The evolution of India’s foreign policy towards the Israel-Palestine issue has been gradual. As a newly independent former colony, India’s outlook towards Palestine reflected its support for decolonization. This was coupled with a mix of pragmatism and idealism, as it hoped it would increase its standing among the Arab nations which centered Palestine in their foreign policy. As an extension of its rejection to colonial rule, India did not establish diplomatic relations with Israel, although it recognized it in 1950. During India’s war with China in 1962, as well as with Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, it did covertly take support from Israel when the latter provided weapons to India.
It was only in 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union and India’s gradual pivot towards the United States, that it also began official diplomatic relations with Israel. Connecting to the United States through Israel was important for India since the United States was an instrumental partner in helping India’s economic growth via investments, maintaining strength against the threat of Pakistan and China, providing India with the ability to conduct maritime trade without any resistance and provide India with advanced defense technology.
India’s engagement with the United States and Israel coincided with the Palestinian cause slowly losing steam in the Arab world, and India also wanted to ensure that it could cultivate a better relationship with the United States which was especially close to Israel. Despite this, India did not shed its support for Palestine, often voting in favor of the latter in UN assemblies to maintain its neutrality and prevent the Palestinian leadership from commenting on Kashmir, a sensitive point of India which has been accused of occupying Kashmir by neighboring Pakistan.
Over time, India’s engagement with Israel increased significantly to a point where its trade with the latter crossed the 10 billion USD mark, with India benefitting off Israel’s tech and defense expertise. India also saw its evolving relation with Israel as a means of growing closer to the United States due to the latter two nations’ special relationship. In addition, both Israel and India have had strong right-wing parties whose officials have exhibited Islamophobic tendencies. Even post October 7, India’s Prime Minister Modi and Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar supported Israel and condemned terror attacks, refusing to vote on any ceasefire calls at the UN unless the resolutions also criticized Hamas’ violence. In addition, both Indian media and social media influencers took a strong pro-Israeli stance, indicating approval at top levels of the government given the structure of Indian media. Lastly, India also agreed to send over 100,000 laborers to Israel to replace the Palestinians that Israel let go of due to perceived security threats. As such, India has expressed significant support to Israel both before and after last year’s events.
Despite all these inclinations towards each other and Modi’s support for Israel after October 7, India still voted several times for Palestinian rights in the United Nations, including condemning illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. In addition, as recently as March 2024, S. Jaishankar—the external minister and one of the most important figures within the BJP government—noted that Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians was unacceptable and that the Palestinians were denied of a homeland, making it among the most important issues to solve. This also aligned with India’s support for a two-state solution, an option that Israel routinely rejects. Yet, India’s criticism is muted in comparison to other nations such as South Africa and others representing a certain tension between India’s position on Palestine and its relationship with Israel.
Three major reasons can explain this support for Palestine. Firstly, many nations within the Global South have criticized Israel for its brutal killings of Palestinian civilians. India, which views itself as a potential leader of the Global South, cannot ignore this support for Palestine driving some of its actions and statements. For example, Modi has waxed eloquently about the role that the G20 summit of 2023 as well as the ‘Voice of the Global South’ summit also held earlier in 2023 played a role in advancing India’s leadership in this aspect. Abandoning the Palestinian cause—which has been considered of importance to the Global South nations—will likely lead to India losing credibility in its bid for leadership, thus explaining part of the reason why India still supports Palestine.
Secondly, the United States—which was gaining some semblance of support in the Arab world where India is trying to make heavy investments in—has lost much of its standing due its support for Israel given Arab populations’ opposition to Israel. It is only natural that India would want to be cautious about projecting an image of neutrality to ensure it does not lose its alliances in the Arab world, too. This is because for India, the Middle East and especially the Gulf Cooperation Council nations are major sources of oil to help satisfy India’s growing energy needs as well as a home for millions of Indians who send back around 40 billion dollars in remittance annually (about one third of total remittances to India). Lastly, with the war having regional implications such as drawing in Iran and Lebanon, as well as blocking trade routes that are important to India, too, it would want to avoid escalation in the conflict, leading it to take action that could persuade Israel to reduce its brutality in Palestine.
Clearly, India’s strategic interests and pragmatism continues to play a role in guiding its foreign policy. While Hindutva influence means a desire to be a more aggressive country, especially when it comes to securing its borders (an issue that Israel is facing), the BJP cannot ignore India’s strategic interests and pragmatism. This means maintaining an approach that is in line with its desire to be a leader of the Global South. The underlying principle of pragmatism was similar to Nehru’s position in the 1960s whereby, despite strongly supporting Palestine, he still contacted Israel for weapons in his war against China.
In the future, too, it is expected that India will continue to take a similarly balanced approach that will ensure that it does not overly align itself too much in one direction when it comes to this conflict. This could change depending on different factors such as global opinion as well as the economic and defense prowess of Israel, but largely, a similar position can be expected at least in the short term.
Editor’s Note: This publication was written as part of the Geopolitics of Religious Soft Power project, a research initiative of Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. This article arises from a partnership between the project and the United States Institute of Peace focused on understanding how the geopolitics of religion shapes peace and conflict dynamics in particular regional and country settings. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the respective author(s).
Mohammed Sinan Siyech is a full scholarship doctoral candidate at the Islamic and Middle East Studies Department at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He also teaches politics at King's College London and at School of Oriental and African Studies. He has written and spoken extensively on security, foreign policy, and religion in South Asia and the Middle East.
