Delhi's lose-lose foreign policy approach with Israel and Palestine

Indian Express

4 hours ago

There is perhaps no image more heartbreaking than that of Palestinian children longing for the beloved Parle G biscuits that have nourished generations of Indian children. In the rubble-strewn streets of Gaza, these most affordable Indian biscuits have become precious commodities, their exorbitant costs placing them beyond the reach of parents struggling to provide even basic sustenance for their children. This painful reality serves as a stark reminder of our shared humanity and our duty to protect children everywhere. If one has to decide between guns and children, one must always choose children. No matter whose guns, no matter whose children.
Yet India's abstention on June 12 from a UN ceasefire resolution in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict, titled Protection of Civilians and Upholding Legal and Humanitarian Obligations, marks a betrayal of our historical solidarity with the Palestinian cause. As I have written before, the relationship between India and Palestine was built on shared experiences of colonial subjugation and anti-imperial struggle. Mahatma Gandhi's words from 1938 remain as relevant today as they were then: 'Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.' Jawaharlal Nehru was equally clear when he declared, 'Palestine is essentially an Arab country and must remain so.' For decades after Independence, India stood firmly with Palestine, recognising the Palestinian state early and consistently supporting their right to self-determination at international forums.
This solidarity reflected India's broader leadership of the Global South in the post-Independence era, where we confidently and strongly championed the causes of decolonisation, self-determination, and justice for oppressed peoples worldwide. Our foreign policy was anchored in moral principles that transcended narrow strategic calculations, earning us respect and leadership among newly independent nations. India's stance on Palestine was emblematic of this principled approach as we consistently chose to stand with the dispossessed against powerful oppressors, regardless of their military or economic might.
Contemporary India's foreign policy has become increasingly opportunistic rather than principled, marking a dramatic shift from our foundational ethos. This transactional approach, evident in our abstentions on the two recent Palestine-related resolutions, reflects what I have analysed in an earlier article ('Dear people of Palestine', IE, June 17, 2021) as the actions of a government which believes 'that an electoral majority is a licence to trample over anything, including history'. While pursuing perceived strategic advantages through closer ties with Israel, India has neither secured the opportunities it seeks nor maintained its moral leadership. The irony is quite stark. This unexplainable stance has left us diplomatically isolated on crucial global issues, contradicting the very 'vasudhaiva kutumbakam' philosophy we claim to uphold.
Strong moral leadership itself constitutes a powerful diplomatic tool that India has historically wielded with great effect. Nations accumulate moral capital by standing on the right side of history. This capital is the crux of soft power and international influence. Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent resistance and India's anti-colonial struggle inspired liberation movements worldwide, giving India a moral authority that extended far beyond our economic or military capabilities. By abandoning this moral foundation, we have weakened our own diplomatic heft, trading long-term influence for immediate and cynical gains that may or may not materialise.
It fundamentally does not serve India's interests to align with Israel, which in its current shape and form under the incumbent leadership can only be described as a morally corrupt and warmongering state. While Israel may appear powerful, it remains essentially an American client state, dependent on US military aid and diplomatic protection. India's growing alignment with Israel risks reducing us to an ally of a client state, a position that contradicts our aspirations for strategic autonomy. Moreover, global public opinion is overwhelmingly arrayed against the Zionist project and its ongoing occupation. Despite the media spin by political elites, the occupation of Palestine and what has been variously termed 'apartheid' and 'incremental genocide' deeply resonates with the moral conscience of citizens worldwide, making India's stance increasingly untenable.
The international law implications of India's stance are equally troubling. By abstaining from resolutions condemning clear violations of international humanitarian law, India effectively becomes complicit in what reputed international human rights organisations have characterised as systematic oppression. This position undermines India's own claims to champion international law and multilateralism.
India's alignment with Israel also jeopardises our relationship with Iran, a crucial ally in the region. Iran's steadfast support for Palestine represents a core element of its regional strategy. As India deepens its ties with Israel while abandoning Palestinian solidarity, we risk alienating Iran and other nations that view the Palestinian cause as a litmus test for moral consistency in international relations. This diplomatic calculus seems particularly shortsighted given Iran's strategic importance for India's energy security and regional connectivity.
The recent Madleen flotilla effort and the global people's march to Gaza demonstrate the remarkable resolve and bravery of ordinary citizens challenging the status quo when their governments fail them. These grassroots initiatives remind us that moral leadership often emerges from below when those in power abdicate their responsibilities. As I have written to our Palestinian friends, 'Let me assure you that the civilisational ethos of India is far more powerful than any regime which believes that they can erase and rewrite memory and history.'
When Palestinian children dream of simple Parle G biscuits, we are reminded that our choices have consequences that extend far beyond diplomatic halls. We owe help and support to every child who has ever reached for a biscuit and found only empty shelves, who has ever looked to India with hope and found only silence.
The writer is Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Rashtriya Janata Dal