Notes for students
Topic: India’s Foreign Policy: Israel-Palestine Conflict and Strategic-Moral Dissonance, News Source: The Indian Express, Date: June 28, 2025
Context of the Editorial:
India’s abstention from a UN ceasefire resolution on the Israel-Hamas conflict raises questions about the country’s deviation from its traditional pro-Palestinian moral diplomacy to a strategic, Israel-tilted approach.
UPSC Relevance: GS Paper II – International Relations-India’s Foreign Policy-West Asia Conflict-India-Iran-Israel Geopolitics
Dimensions of the Editorial:
- Soft Power Symbols (Parle G as Diplomacy)
- Moral vs Strategic Diplomacy
- India’s Historic Solidarity with Palestine
- Erosion of Soft Power & Moral Capital
- Compromise on Multilateralism & International Law
- Geopolitical Costs: Iran and Global South
- Civil Society’s Moral Assertion vs State Inertia
Editorial Context
- India has historically supported the Palestinian cause, grounded in shared colonial experiences and principles of justice, self-determination, and anti-imperialism.
- Contemporary foreign policy has shifted toward pragmatism, evident in India’s abstentions at the UN on resolutions concerning Israeli military action in Gaza.
- This strategic tilt toward Israel has not resulted in significant strategic or diplomatic gains, while it has weakened India’s moral authority and international standing.
- India risks straining ties with Iran, an important partner for energy and regional connectivity, due to its visible proximity to Israel.
- The editorial warns that India’s retreat from moral leadership may diminish its influence in the Global South and contradicts the foundational ethos of Indian diplomacy.
Features of the Editorial
1. Historical Position on Palestine
- Mahatma Gandhi (1938): Rejected the imposition of a Jewish state over Arabs in Palestine.
- Nehru: Advocated for Palestinian sovereignty.
- India recognized Palestine early and consistently voted in its favor at international platforms.
2. Deviation from Moral Foreign Policy
- India abstained from UNGA Resolution (June 12, 2025) on “Protection of Civilians and Upholding Legal and Humanitarian Obligations”.
- Earlier abstention: June 2021 (referenced article: “Dear People of Palestine”).
- New foreign policy doctrine seen as majoritarian and transactional.
3. Soft Power and Moral Capital Erosion
- India historically led postcolonial moral diplomacy.
- Present stance undermines India’s claim to multilateralism, peace, and justice.
- Rejection of principled stances diminishes diplomatic heft.
4. Strategic Costs
- Israel’s alignment with the US makes India’s dependence on Israel questionable in terms of autonomy.
- Global public opinion increasingly sees Israeli actions as apartheid and settler colonialism.
- India’s perceived neutrality now looks like moral abdication.
5. Geopolitical Risks with Iran
- Iran remains committed to the Palestinian cause.
- As India moves closer to Israel, it risks alienating Iran — vital for energy, Chabahar port, and Central Asian access.
- Iran could recalibrate relations if India is perceived as siding with Israel.
6. People’s Movements as Moral Resistance
- Referencing Madleen flotilla and people’s march to Gaza as examples of citizen-led global resistance.
- Civil society can uphold moral values where states fail.
Explainers
UNGA Ceasefire Resolution (June 2025) – What It Was and Why India Abstained
Background:
The resolution titled “Protection of Civilians and Upholding Legal and Humanitarian Obligations” was introduced in the UN General Assembly in response to the escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza due to Israel’s military offensive. The resolution called for an immediate ceasefire, adherence to international humanitarian law, and protection of civilian life.
India’s Position:
India abstained from voting, neither supporting nor opposing the resolution. This is consistent with its recent diplomatic trend of avoiding clear stances in complex international conflicts, especially involving Israel and Palestine.
Implications:
- Signals a move from India’s historical pro-Palestine position to a neutral or strategically non-committal approach.
- Weakens India’s voice in international legal and humanitarian discourse.
- Perceived globally as a diplomatic evasion of moral responsibility, particularly when the resolution was centered on civilian protection, not ideological alignment.
Soft Power and Moral Capital – What They Mean for Indian Foreign Policy
Soft Power:
Coined by Joseph Nye, it refers to a country’s ability to influence others through cultural appeal, political values, and moral legitimacy—rather than coercion or economic inducement.
Moral Capital:
This is the trust and respect earned by consistently standing on ethical high ground in international affairs. For India, moral capital was built through:
- Leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement
- Advocacy of decolonization and anti-apartheid movements
- Gandhian ideals of non-violence and civilizational inclusiveness
Current Erosion:
By avoiding criticism of a powerful ally (Israel) despite allegations of war crimes, India is seen as abandoning moral clarity for short-term strategic convenience. This depletes soft power and undermines India’s ability to influence morally grounded international coalitions.
Israel as a US Client State – Strategic Implications for India
Definition:
A “client state” is one that heavily relies on another (usually more powerful) nation for military, economic, or diplomatic support. Israel receives approximately $3.8 billion annually in U.S. military aid and enjoys U.S. diplomatic shielding in multilateral fora.
Why It Matters to India:
- India aligning too closely with Israel can be seen as indirectly aligning with U.S. interests in West Asia, which compromises India’s strategic autonomy.
- It contradicts India’s traditionally multi-vector foreign policy—maintaining balanced relations with rival states (e.g., Israel-Iran, US-Russia).
Strategic Risk:
If India is perceived as merely echoing the geopolitical interests of Washington or Tel Aviv, it could lose credibility among countries that value independent and principled diplomacy—particularly within the Global South and Islamic world.
Iran’s Geopolitical Importance to India
Energy Security:
Before U.S. sanctions escalated, Iran was one of India’s top three crude oil suppliers. Iran offers favourable terms such as long credit windows and payment in rupees.
Chabahar Port Project:
India has invested in Chabahar Port to:
- Bypass Pakistan and gain direct access to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
- Counter China’s influence in the Arabian Sea (especially Gwadar Port in Pakistan).
- Facilitate the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), linking India to Russia and Europe via Iran.
Implications of Alienating Iran:
India’s increasing proximity to Israel risks alienating Tehran, whose foreign policy is deeply tied to the Palestinian cause. Any erosion in India-Iran ties may:
- Disrupt strategic connectivity projects
- Reduce India’s bargaining space in West Asia
- Drive Iran closer to China, creating strategic disadvantages for India
Moral Consistency and the Global South – India’s Past and Present
Historic Role:
Post-independence, India was a vocal leader in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), supporting anti-colonial and post-colonial states. It championed causes like:
- Palestinian statehood
- Opposition to apartheid in South Africa
- Independence movements in Africa and Southeast Asia
Shift in Recent Years:
India’s foreign policy is now seen as more transactional, where strategic or economic considerations dominate moral alignments. Abstaining on Gaza, maintaining silence on Rohingya persecution, or hedging on issues like Ukraine all point to this trend.
Impact:
- Weakens India’s credibility among Global South nations who continue to face structural injustice.
- Reduces India’s ability to build coalitions based on shared values, especially in forums like G77, BRICS, and NAM.
- Undermines its claim of representing the “voice of the developing world.”
“Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” vs. Realpolitik
Literal Meaning:
A Sanskrit maxim meaning “The world is one family.” India used this as a core theme during its G20 presidency to project a philosophy of global cooperation and empathy.
Contradiction:
India’s refusal to support resolutions that focus on humanitarian crises (like Gaza) contradicts the moral universality embedded in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.”
Significance:
The inconsistency between rhetoric and action damages India’s international narrative. If India promotes this philosophy on global platforms but abstains on core humanitarian issues, it risks being labelled hypocritical, thereby diminishing the moral force of its diplomacy.
Parle G as a Symbol – Not Sentiment, but Strategy
What the Editorial Says:
Palestinian children longing for a simple Indian biscuit like Parle G amidst war-torn Gaza is not mere sentimentality—it is a metaphor.
Deeper Interpretation:
- Parle G is one of India’s most accessible consumer products—symbolizing India’s people-to-people reach.
- Its presence in Gaza shows India’s historic goodwill and cultural accessibility, even in conflict zones.
Why It Matters:
- Such symbols reinforce soft power—how India is perceived by ordinary people, not just governments.
- Ignoring humanitarian crises, while such symbols still exist on the ground, creates dissonance and may turn admiration into resentment.
Conclusion
India’s foreign policy stance in the Israel-Palestine conflict reveals a deeper crisis of identity and strategic coherence. Once a torchbearer of moral diplomacy and a vocal champion of oppressed peoples, India now appears to be compromising its principled legacy for short-term strategic alignment with Israel. This shift neither yields definitive geopolitical advantages nor preserves India’s long-nurtured soft power.
By abstaining from resolutions that address civilian protection and international humanitarian law, India risks weakening its credibility as a responsible global actor. The costs are multi-fold: alienating regional partners like Iran, distancing itself from the Global South, and eroding the moral capital that once distinguished it from major powers.
