The Great Indian Balancing Act: Arms, Alliances, And The Israel-Hamas War – OpEd
India’s foreign policy has entered a labyrinth of complexity and contradiction. As the Israel-Hamas conflict unfolds, New Delhi’s clandestine arms supply to Israel raises eyebrows and questions about the country’s commitment to its long-held principles of non-alignment. This intricate dance between aligning with Western powers and maintaining solidarity with the Global South reveals the tightrope India walks in the volatile landscape of international diplomacy.
A History of Non-Alignment
For decades, India prided itself on its non-aligned stance, a principle rooted in the Cold War era, designed to steer clear of entangling alliances with major powers. This policy allowed India to champion the cause of developing nations and act as a bridge between opposing blocs. However, the recent geopolitical shifts, driven by economic ambitions and strategic imperatives, have challenged this stance, pushing India closer to Western powers, particularly the United States.
The Israel-Hamas Conflict: A Test of Principles
The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict has become a litmus test for India’s foreign policy principles. Since the October 7 attacks by Hamas and the subsequent heavy bombardment of Gaza by Israel, resulting in thousands of casualties, India’s response has been multi-layered. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar have articulated a stance that condemns terrorism unequivocally, aligns with Israel’s right to self-defence, but also calls for restraint and the protection of civilian lives.
However, the subtleties of this stance reveal deeper complexities. India has stopped short of designating Hamas as a terrorist organization, a move that aligns with many Western nations but contrasts with some developing countries’ views. Moreover, India’s calls for “humanitarian pauses” in the bombardment rather than a full “ceasefire” indicate a delicate balancing act aimed at not alienating its Western allies while still resonating with its Global South partners.
Clandestine Arms Supplies: A Strategic Necessity or a Betrayal?
Reports of India’s clandestine arms supplies to Israel during the conflict have added another layer of controversy. A significant shipment of 27 tonnes of explosives from India to Israel highlights the depth of their defence relationship. This development is seen by many as a pragmatic move to secure India’s strategic interests and technological advancement in defence. Israel, known for its cutting-edge military technology, has been a critical supplier to India, particularly in missile defence systems, drones, and surveillance equipment.
The Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India Ltd., a joint venture between Adani Defence and Aerospace and Israel’s Elbit Systems, has been instrumental in exporting munitions to Israel, including aero-structures, subsystems, and over 20 Hermes 900 UAVs/drones. Additionally, the government-owned Munitions India Ltd. exported ordnance to Israel as recently as January 2024. These transactions underscore the importance of the defense partnership between the two nations.
However, this clandestine arms supply has sparked criticism from various quarters. Critics argue that such actions compromise India’s long-standing principle of non-alignment and its moral standing on international platforms. The clandestine nature of these transactions, further highlighted by the denial of port facilities in Spain for a Danish-flagged merchant vessel carrying the arms shipment, raises questions about the transparency and ethics of India’s foreign policy decisions.
The Iran-Israel Dichotomy
Adding to the complexity of India’s foreign policy is its simultaneous engagement with Iran, a staunch adversary of Israel. In May 2024, India signed a 10-year agreement to operate the strategic Iranian port of Chabahar, a move seen as critical for India’s trade and strategic interests in the region. Chabahar port offers India a gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan, and serves as a counterbalance to China’s influence through the Gwadar port in Pakistan.
This dual engagement with both Israel and Iran highlights India’s pragmatic approach to foreign policy, prioritizing strategic and economic interests over ideological alignments. However, it also exposes India to the risks of navigating conflicting alliances in a region marked by deep-seated enmities and volatile politics.
Aligning with the West
India’s closer alignment with Western countries, particularly the United States, is evident in its recent diplomatic activities and defence agreements. The “2+2” dialogues with the U.S. and Australia, along with joint statements reflecting the West’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict, signify a strategic partnership aimed at countering Chinese influence and ensuring regional stability.
This alignment with the West is driven by multiple factors. Economically, India seeks to integrate with global markets, attract foreign investment, and leverage technology transfers from advanced economies. Strategically, the rise of China as a dominant regional and global power has pushed India closer to Western nations, leading to collaborations such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) involving the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India.
The Global South Connection
Despite this shift towards the West, India continues to emphasize its connection to the Global South. Hosting the ‘Voice of Global South’ Summit and providing humanitarian aid to Gaza underscore India’s efforts to maintain solidarity with developing nations. India’s support for a two-state solution and the socio-economic welfare of Palestinians reflects its ongoing commitment to traditional allies in the Global South.
However, this balancing act is fraught with challenges. India’s closer ties with Western nations, coupled with its defence cooperation with Israel, risk alienating some countries in the Global South, particularly those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. This delicate diplomacy requires India to navigate carefully to avoid undermining its historical ties and influence among developing nations.
The Strategic Imperative
India’s foreign policy decisions, particularly its clandestine arms supply to Israel, must be viewed through the lens of strategic imperatives. The volatile geopolitical landscape, marked by the rise of China, regional conflicts, and the need for technological advancement, necessitates a pragmatic approach that prioritizes national security and economic growth.
The defence partnership with Israel provides India with access to advanced military technology essential for its security and counter-terrorism efforts. Moreover, diversifying defence procurement sources ensures India does not rely excessively on any single supplier, maintaining strategic autonomy.
The Road Ahead
India’s foreign policy is at a critical juncture, navigating a complex web of alliances and interests. The Israel-Hamas conflict has highlighted the challenges and contradictions inherent in balancing closer ties with the West and maintaining solidarity with the Global South. India’s clandestine arms supply to Israel, while strategically necessary, raises ethical and diplomatic questions about its commitment to non-alignment and transparency.
As India continues to assert its role on the global stage, its ability to balance competing interests and navigate the intricate dynamics of international relations will be crucial. The pursuit of strategic autonomy, economic growth, and regional stability will shape India’s foreign policy in the years to come, determining its influence and standing in a rapidly changing world.
Finally, India’s stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, its clandestine arms supply to Israel, and its balancing act between the West and the Global South reflect the complexities of modern diplomacy. This multifaceted approach, while pragmatic, challenges India’s traditional principles and poses significant diplomatic and ethical questions. As the global geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, India’s foreign policy will need to adapt, maintaining its strategic interests while upholding its moral and diplomatic commitments.