The Hindu Editorial Analysis
25 September 2025
India’s muted voice, its detachment with Palestine
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper II – International Relations | GS Paper I – World History | GS Paper IV – Ethics
Context
India, once a vocal supporter of Palestine’s independence, has recently shifted towards a more muted, cautious, and detached position. Despite its history of championing the Palestinian cause at the UN and other international platforms, New Delhi today appears reluctant to take a firm stand against Israeli actions, preferring strategic silence.
Key Issues and Arguments
1. India’s Historical Role
- India was among the first non-Arab nations to recognize Palestine and strongly advocated its cause in global forums like the UN.
- Leaders like Nehru consistently opposed colonialism and apartheid, linking Palestine’s struggle with India’s own freedom struggle.
- During the 1970s–80s, India’s foreign policy strongly supported Palestinian self-determination while maintaining distance from Israel.
2. Shift in Contemporary Policy
- Since the 1990s, especially post-1992 (India-Israel full diplomatic ties), India has gradually tilted towards balancing relations.
- The editorial points out a muted response by India to recent Israeli actions in Gaza and West Bank despite global outrage.
- India’s abstentions in UN resolutions reflect a cautious attempt to avoid alienating Israel and the U.S., while quietly distancing itself from its earlier pro-Palestine commitments.
3. Ethical and Human Rights Dimension
- The editorial argues that India’s silence undermines its legacy as a defender of justice, identity, dignity, and human rights.
- With thousands of Palestinian civilians killed, India’s muted stance creates a contradiction between its historical values and present-day realpolitik.
- This silence is especially striking given India’s active participation in other human rights debates globally.
4. Strategic Calculations
- India’s current silence is partly due to its security ties with Israel (defense, counter-terrorism, technology).
- A growing India-U.S.-Israel alignment in West Asia influences New Delhi’s muted diplomacy.
- Economic and strategic partnerships have seemingly outweighed India’s earlier moral leadership on Palestine.
Policy Gaps Identified
| Area | Gaps |
|---|---|
| Foreign Policy | Inconsistency between India’s historical moral position and present-day realpolitik |
| Human Rights | Weak defense of justice, selective silence on humanitarian crises |
| UN Diplomacy | Abstentions dilute India’s credibility as leader of Global South |
| Strategic Partnerships | Over-prioritization of bilateral relations with Israel/U.S. over humanitarian values |
Suggestions for the Way Forward
- Reassert Historical Commitments
- Uphold India’s earlier role as a defender of justice and rights for oppressed peoples.
- Voice strong, consistent positions in global forums, especially at the UN.
- Balance Strategy with Values
- Strategic partnerships with Israel must not come at the cost of abandoning Palestine.
- India can adopt a middle-path diplomacy: support humanitarian aid to Palestinians while engaging Israel on trade and defense.
- Revive Moral Diplomacy
- Leverage India’s credibility in the Global South to mediate in West Asia.
- Lead initiatives for ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and peace-building.
- Strengthen Domestic-International Link
- Frame India’s support for Palestine as part of its larger commitment to anti-colonialism, justice, and global equity.
- This echoes India’s own freedom struggle and enhances credibility among developing nations.
Conclusion
India’s detachment from Palestine reflects a troubling shift from values-based diplomacy to transactional pragmatism. While realpolitik with Israel and the U.S. is understandable, silence on humanitarian crises erodes India’s moral voice. To truly honor its legacy, India must reclaim its principled stand—not just as a strategic actor but as a global advocate of justice, dignity, and human rights.