Diplomatic pragmatism or ideological affinity: Why India abstained from voting in UN resolution for ceasefire in Gaza

India was among the 19 nations that abstained from the United Nations General Assembly vote calling for an 'immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire' in Gaza. This abstention has drawn significant criticism both internationally and diplomatically.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticised all abstaining nations, including India, for “prioritising geopolitics over the protection of civilian lives”. Jan Egeland, Secretary of the Norwegian Refugee Council, said, “This is not a time to hedge bets. It's a moment for nations to stand unequivocally for human dignity." India's leading opposition party Congress called this move a "staggering moral cowardice", and accused the ruling BJP of abandoning the late former prime minister and stalwart of BJP, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s principled stand on the Middles east conflict.

India's UN envoy, Ambassador P. Harish, said that this abstention was consistent with India's past voting records, "the belief that there is no other way to resolve conflicts but through dialogue and diplomacy. A joint effort should be directed towards bringing the two sides closer.”

Two state solution is bleak

There can be no meaningful dialogue while one party is pointing arms at another. As the humanitarian crisis worsens, civilian institutions collapse, and future governance structures become less viable. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has said the US should “take ownership” of the Gaza Strip. The Jewish settlement in the West Bank is expanding at a rapid pace. There had been instances of selling land on the West Bank to Jews in the US. The settlements are pushing Palestinians into zones where they lack basic human rights. The same land is governed by two laws: Jewish people by civil laws and Palestinians by military code.

“A system in which one group of people is granted rights and privileges, while another group is systematically denied them, meets the definition of apartheid,” said Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, and the United Nations all agree that Israel is not looking to end the crisis but just wants to manage it. For almost the last 70 years since the Nakba, Israel has managed to normalise occupation and colonial subjugation, not just because of the support from leaders of the West, but also because of the disinterest from Arab leaders to pressurise and negotiate a viable solution.

Ideological affinity and shared bigotry

In the past decade, there has been a Hindutva resurgence in India that has ideological alignment with Zionism in Israel, with shared narratives, often also carrying undertones of majoritarian bigotry. Both of them centre around the idea of religious or ethnonationalism revolving around Hinduism and Judaism. Both India and Israel see themselves as historically wronged. They perceive themselves as a demographic threat, being surrounded by hostile nations, and have a fetish for a strong, assertive state to survive. They have a shared narrative for Islamophobia: for Israel, it is Hamas in Gaza, and for India, it is the terror outfits in Kashmir. This leads to mutual validation of exclusionary policy and state-sponsored bigotry.

However, critics argue that this abstention is more strategic and diplomatic, even though there is an ideological undertone to it.

Diplomatic Pragmatism of India

“India's abstention is neither accidental nor purely procedural. It’s a calibrated move to preserve its strategic relationship with Israel while managing its traditional support for the Palestinian cause,” said Dr. Happymon Jacob, Associate Professor at JNU and foreign policy analyst.

India's decision mirrors its past abstentions in UN resolutions concerning the Israel-Gaza conflict since October 2023. On the outside, it supports the sovereignty and statehood of Palestine. In 1974, India was one of the first non-Arab states to recognise the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, and in 1988, it recognised Palestinian statehood. India strongly supported Palestine during the Cold War era, voting in favour of most pro-Palestine UN resolutions.

But now, from recent patterns of abstention in 2022 and 2023, it appears India is consistent about its stand on security and terrorism, and resonates with Israel on those measures. Moreover, with time, India is getting more pragmatic about the possibility of a Palestinian statehood and avoiding taking sides in a conflict it doesn't control. Even though it expresses concern about the humanitarian crisis, but avoids direct condemnation to maintain diplomatic capital with both states. The Israel-Palestine conflict has colonial roots, and India itself has colonial scars all over itself.

India has close strategic ties with Israel in defence, cyber, and intelligence sharing, and there is a growing closeness between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In 2017, PM Modi became the first Indian PM to visit Israel; however, in 2018, he visited the mausoleum of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas hosted Modi in Ramallah.

India is trying to navigate this diplomatic situation more with mechanical solidarity than organic solidarity.