India’s Gaza Abstention: Bridge or Empty Space?

In mid-June, the United Nations General Assembly voted strongly in favour of an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, alongside the promises of humanitarian aid and the release of hostages. Out of 193 member states, 149 voted yes, including major US allies such as Japan and Australia. 19 abstained. One of them was India.

On paper, this might seem like just another UN vote. But for a country that once saw itself as the moral voice of the post-colonial world, choosing to stay in the "neither completely-for-nor-completely-against” list carries some weight.

India’s relationship with Palestine goes way back. In 1974, it became the first non-Arab country to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organization, and in 1988, it formally recognised the State of Palestine. Even after opening diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992, India continued to back UN resolutions supporting Palestinian self-determination. Over time, however, growing trade, defence, and technology links with Israel have led to a more careful stance. Today, India works to balance both relationships while responding to global and domestic pressures.

In earlier decades, Congress-led governments leaned more openly toward the Palestinian cause, reflecting India’s non-aligned stance. While ties with Israel existed, they were kept low-key. The BJP-led government, especially under Prime Minister Modi, has been more willing to deepen strategic and economic cooperation with Israel, including open visits, defence deals, and technology partnerships, while still maintaining formal support for a two-state solution. This doesn’t mean India is taking sides per se, but it does signal a shift from symbolic solidarity to a more interest-driven approach. The Gaza abstentions are part of this broader recalibration.

The June abstention is not the first under the current Modi government. Similar decisions have been taken before, often justified as “balanced diplomacy.” But each such vote slowly rewrites India’s long-held position on the issue.

The government says this abstention was based on two points. First, the resolution did not explicitly condemn the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023 something India saw as necessary for any balanced call for peace. Second, India continues to support a two-state solution and believes dialogue, not one-sided resolutions, is the only realistic way forward.

In simple terms, India says it is not ignoring what’s happening in Gaza but is unwilling to back language that, in its view, reduces a complex conflict to a one-sided story. From this perspective, the abstention is not a retreat from principle but a calculated diplomatic choice.

Beyond official statements, the move also reflects broader shifts in Indian foreign policy. In the past decade, India has moved away from the language of solidarity toward a more interest-driven approach. The focus is on balancing multiple relationships: strengthening defence and technology links with Israel while keeping vital economic ties with Gulf states, and increasing influence in global forums.

An abstention fits neatly into that approach. It avoids alienating either Arab partners or Israel, both crucial for India’s energy needs, trade, and security. It’s a way of keeping diplomatic doors open in all directions, even in the midst of a humanitarian crisis.

India has also been working hard to position itself as a leader of the Global South, hosting summits, advocating for climate justice, and calling for fairer trade and finance rules. But leadership is tested most in difficult, high-stakes moments, not in controlled diplomatic settings.

Other Global South countries, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia, voted in favour of the Gaza resolution despite their own diplomatic constraints. For India, abstaining on a matter involving large-scale civilian suffering risks raising doubts about its credibility. It can feed the perception that India’s solidarity is conditional, offered only when convenient, withheld when it might be costly.

Abstaining is still a decision. It means choosing to stay in the middle, keeping ties with both sides. The challenge for India is to ensure this middle ground is a bridge, not an empty space. Without that, abstentions risk being seen less as careful diplomacy and more as indifference.

The UN vote is just one episode in the long story of India’s place on the world stage. But moments like these matter. They shape how the world sees India, and how India sees itself. If it wants to remain the voice of the Global South, it must decide whether that voice will be heard most in quiet negotiations or the open debates of the world’s main stage.

-by Naysha Kasat