ISLAMABAD: India’s traditional claim of ‘neutrality’ and a ‘non-aligned’ foreign policy has come under scrutiny as the nation openly expressed support for Israel during the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and Israeli brutalities against innocent Palestinian civilians. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s clear support for Israel marked a departure from India’s historical stance of advocating for the rights of the Palestinian people, raising questions about the nation’s principled position in international conflicts.
While India has historically maintained a diplomatic balance between Israel and Palestine, the recent conflict exposed a strategic agenda that appears to replace its so-called neutrality. In contrast to Modi’s public support for Israel, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson, Arindam Bagchi, attempted damage control by reiterating India’s position in favor of direct negotiations leading to a sovereign Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel.
The disparity between Modi’s endorsement of Israel and the MEA’s call for diplomatic solutions highlighted a potential rift within the Indian government. Political observers noted that while the MEA aimed to preserve a delicate balance to avoid alienating its Muslim population, Modi seemed focused on advancing his political objectives, demonstrating a lack of consistency in India’s foreign policy stance.
Analysts argue that India’s foreign policy has shifted from idealistic to pragmatic, emphasizing strategic interests over historical principles. This shift was apparent during the recent UN General Assembly session on the ‘humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas,’ where India chose to ‘abstain’ from voting, indicating a departure from its previous voting patterns.
The evolving India-Israel relationship adds complexity to this situation. Since the BJP government’s rise to power in 2014, India and Israel have significantly expanded their cooperation, particularly in military engagements, cybersecurity, and defense equipment. In 2017, the countries elevated their relationship to a strategic partnership, and Israel became one of India’s major arms exporters, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
India’s Collaboration with Israel Ignoring Brutalities in Gaza
It is also believed that PM Modi’s 2017 visit to Israel (the first by any Indian Prime Minister) resulted in acquiring a sales package of sophisticated weapons gear that included the controversial spyware Pegasus and missile system worth US$2 billion. This deal worked as a magnet between New Delhi and Tel Aviv as India was seen shedding its neutrality at the UN Economic and Social Council in June 2019, when it voted in support of Israel to deny observer status to a Palestinian human rights organization.
Most recently, in 2022, during Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Gantz’s visit to India, the two countries signed a comprehensive 10-year roadmap to expand on the ‘India-Israel Vision on Defense Cooperation,’ which would include cooperation on emerging and futuristic defense technologies. The Indian military is already operating several Israeli defense platforms.
Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, missiles, and radar systems dominate India-Israel defense cooperation, said to be worth US$ 4.2 billion. Furthermore, Israel’s defense exports include, Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missiles (BVRAAM), Air to Surface Missile (ASM), guided bombs, anti-tank guided missiles, loitering munition, SPICE-2000 guided bombs, which were used during so-called Balakot airstrikes; various types of sensors and radars including early warning radar systems, electro-optical infrared sensors, naval radars and so on.
India has also imported Israeli Air Defense Systems with Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM). Additionally, last year, India leased four Heron II armed unmanned aerial vehicles, which are believed to be deployed for surveillance across the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China. The exhaustive list of defense equipment shows Israel is outdoing itself when it comes to India, which has persuaded India to overlook its long-standing policy of ‘neutrality’ in terms of the Israel-Palestine issue.
Israel as Second Top Arms Supplier to India
Israel has become the second top arms supplier to India, replacing France. Given India’s expanding strategic partnership with Israel, New Delhi’s interest lies in supporting its strategic partner, as it is doing in the Russia and Ukraine conflict. The only difference is that this time, India explicitly supported its strategic partner Israel, whereas due to different dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India tilted towards Russia more implicitly. Neither of the two instances showed that India has a ‘neutral’ and so-called ‘non-aligned’ policy. Rather, a critical analysis of the two situations reveals that New Delhi used ‘neutrality’ as a pretext to avoid criticism while actually promoting its core strategic objectives.
If India truly pursued a ‘neutral’ and ‘non-aligned’ policy, it would have sought ways to promote peace and stability in the region, including calling for an immediate ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution of the matter. Given the current circumstances, it remains unlikely that the Indian PM Modi would call for a ceasefire or end of hostilities by Israel.
Although India has sent humanitarian assistance to Gaza, it remains to be seen as yet if the Indian PM would maintain the principled position of India, call out the ongoing genocide in Gaza, or at least express sympathies for the Palestinian civilian victims of the relentless Israeli attacks.
Notwithstanding its earlier principled stance on the Israel-Palestinian issue, India has evidently ditched the balance in the ongoing conflict and openly aligned itself with Israel due to its close and growing strategic relationship with Tel Aviv. The ongoing conflict has been a litmus test for India’s foreign policy, and its decision to ditch ‘neutrality’ has made clear that India is willing to prioritize strategic interests over a principled stance or the much-touted ‘strategic autonomy.’
