On 13 June 2025, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Gaza ceasefire resolution, calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. Of the 193 member states, an overwhelming 149 voted in favour, 12 voted against, and 19 abstained. Among the abstentions stood India.
Long regarded as a moral compass of the postcolonial world, India now finds its position under scrutiny.
This was no ordinary vote. It took place amid one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent memory. With Gaza’s health system collapsing, food and water supplies dwindling, and tens of thousands of civilians—many of them children—killed or injured, the resolution was not a political manoeuvre. It was an appeal for mercy.
India’s decision to abstain, cloaked in diplomatic ambiguity, does not just mark neutrality; it signals a shift toward a more interest-driven diplomatic approach.
From Moral Vanguard to Diplomatic Ambiguity
India’s abstention wasn’t just a vote. It is a calculated step away from the moral clarity that once defined its post-colonial foreign policy.
For decades, New Delhi stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Palestinians. It opposed the 1947 partition plan, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation long before many Arab states, and welcomed the State of Palestine in 1988. In 1975, India supported the UN Resolution that branded Zionism as a form of racism.
India’s early foreign policy was rooted in principled leadership, guided by figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who saw foreign relations as an extension of India’s anti-colonial ethos.
In 1938, Gandhi wrote in Harijan that Palestine, like England, belongs to the people who live there; forcing Jewish settlers on Arabs is wrong. His message linked India's struggle against British rule with the fight many Arabs were facing. He asserted, “It is both immoral and inhumane to impose Jews upon Arabs.” His remarks exemplified India's alignment with anti-colonial movements beyond its territory.
Addressing the United Nations in 1949, Prime Minister Nehru declared that India's foreign policy would be guided by principles of justice and international solidarity, as opposed to a mere balance of power.
For decades after, that promise did not waver. India historically supported the Palestinian cause by providing scholarships and developmental aid to Palestinian students and institutions. It also voiced criticism of Israeli air strikes on civilian populations.
However, in 1992, India quietly established full diplomatic relations with Israel, marking a shift towards a more balanced West Asia policy.
The Strategic Pivot and the Modi Doctrine
India entered a new chapter in its foreign affairs after the Cold War, and even more so after it opened up the economy in 1991. The Soviet Union's fall, rising need for Gulf oil, and a sharper eye on profits, pushed India to think more like a realist. In 1992, it sealed full diplomatic ties with Israel, and the balancing act thus begun.
In recent years, India’s policy appears to reflect a closer strategic alignment with Israel. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, defence deals and tech projects with Tel Aviv have surged. In 2017, Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel, notably omitting a concurrent visit to Palestine. India has increasingly opted to abstain or maintain silence in response to Israeli military operations. Today, India is consistently among Israel’s top arms buyers, and their yearly trade tops $5 billion.
Official figures from India's Ministry of External Affairs indicate that total bilateral trade in goods reached approximately USD 6.53 billion in FY 2023–24 (April–March), excluding defence-related trade. As per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India imported approximately 128 million US dollars worth of arms from Israel in 2024.
While India continues to affirm the two-state solution, recent voting patterns reflect a more cautious diplomatic posture. More often, it simply abstains or stays quiet when Israel launches big military missions. The June 2025 abstention marks the latest entry in this growing pattern.
What Was the UN Resolution About?
To understand the weight of India’s decision, we must look at the content of the UN General Assembly Resolution.
Despite claims of political bias, the resolution was fundamentally humanitarian. It called for an immediate, unconditional, and lasting ceasefire; demanded the release of all hostages and detainees; urged unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza; and condemned the use of starvation as a weapon of war.
It also referred to provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found that Israel’s actions in Gaza posed a “plausible risk of genocide.”
Notably, the resolution did not praise Hamas or attack Israel with hostile language. Countries directly affected by Hamas’ attacks—including France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and Australia—voted in favour. India, however, cited two reasons for its abstention: the resolution’s failure to condemn terrorism explicitly, and its reference to ICJ rulings.
Both reasons are unconvincing. India has previously supported resolutions invoking the ICJ, particularly during the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Moreover, if direct victims of Hamas terrorism could support the resolution, India’s abstention may reflect a tilt toward strategic caution, but one that comes with humanitarian implications.
India’s position separated it from many of its global south and western partners. Aside from Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, and a few small Pacific nations, no major Global South country abstained. In contrast, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, and Nigeria, all voted in favour. These countries, many of which have ties with both Israel and Palestine, recognised that the scale of humanitarian suffering outweighed political reservations.
Even India’s traditional Western allies—Japan, the UK, and Australia—supported the resolution. South Africa went a step further by filing a genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. India, in stark contrast, chose silence.
This weakens New Delhi’s longstanding claim to be a “Voice of the Global South”. More significantly, it may complicate India’s efforts to project itself as a responsible and values-driven global leader.
Strategic Gains, Moral Costs
Supporters of the abstention frame it as realpolitik—a move shaped by defence interests, energy diplomacy, and intelligence collaboration.
India and Israel have strengthened defence collaboration, shared intelligence on radical extremism, and benefited from technological partnerships.
While strategic partnerships offer tangible benefits, they must be weighed against long-term diplomatic expectations and ethical considerations.
It alienates Arab nations that are key to India’s energy security, trade, and expatriate welfare. It disheartens progressive voices at home that view the Palestinian struggle as aligned with India’s anti-colonial heritage. Most damagingly, it erodes India’s moral standing at a time when it seeks to be recognised as a global leader.
Gaza has become a humanitarian graveyard. According to UN agencies, around 55,345 Palestinians have died—most of them women and children. Hospitals lack anaesthesia. Over two million have been displaced. The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned of deliberate obstruction of food and water supplies. UN staff and aid workers have been killed.
The resolution, which condemned starvation as a method of war and reaffirmed the authority of ICJ orders, was grounded in international humanitarian law: the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the ICC (Article 8), and UN Charter Articles 1 and 55.
India’s abstention appears inconsistent with its past support for international legal mechanisms.
Between De-hyphenation and Dehumanisation
India’s foreign policy thinkers often describe their approach as one of “de-hyphenation” — treating Israel and Palestine as separate, independent relationships. But detachment does not justify silence in the face of suffering. While condemning terrorism is essential, silence in the face of disproportionate response can be perceived as ethical ambiguity
Balance does not mean indifference. There is a profound ethical difference between condemning terrorism and condoning disproportionate retaliation through silence.
India had options. It could have supported the resolution and issued a statement denouncing Hamas’s terrorism. It could have reiterated its support for a two-state solution and urged both sides to return to dialogue. Instead, it chose ambiguity, at a time when moral clarity was urgently needed.
In Gaza, entire neighbourhoods lie in ruins. Children drink contaminated water. Thousands remain buried under debris. This is a moment that demands clear humanitarian positioning. Calls to position India as a ‘Vishwa Guru’ or a future Security Council member ring hollow if they aren’t backed by principled action during humanitarian crises.
Because history will remember both, the actions that caused suffering, and the responses —or silences—of those in a position to influence them. It will also remember who stayed silent when it mattered most.
(The author is a policy analyst and independent researcher specialising in international relations, public policy, and global governance. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)