India, Israel, and the Crisis of Strategic Autonomy: From Non-Alignment to Alignment – At the Crossroads of Power and Principle
India’s foreign policy today stands at a moment of reckoning. What was once celebrated as a model of strategic autonomy—rooted in anti-colonial solidarity, non-alignment, and moral leadership—now faces intense scrutiny. Critics argue that India’s deepening embrace of the United States–Israel axis, particularly in the context of the ongoing West Asian conflicts, signals not pragmatism, but a troubling surrender of independence.
The shift is not merely diplomatic. It is civilisational in implication, geopolitical in consequence, and moral in its fallout.
The Erosion of Non-Alignment
For decades after independence, India carved out a unique global identity. It stood firmly with Palestine, opposed imperial interventions, and championed the rights of the Global South. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru viewed the Palestinian struggle as inseparable from the broader anti-colonial movement. India opposed the 1947 partition of Palestine, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974, and formally recognised the State of Palestine in 1988—long before many Western nations were willing to do so.
Today, that legacy appears increasingly diluted.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has moved from cautious engagement with Israel to an openly celebrated strategic partnership. The 2017 visit to Israel—without the customary balancing visit to Palestinian leadership—marked a symbolic departure from diplomatic tradition. By early 2026, this relationship had deepened into what is now described as a “Special Strategic Partnership for Peace, Innovation, and Prosperity,” strengthening cooperation across defence, cyber security, intelligence, and critical technologies.
What was once framed as “de-hyphenation”—treating Israel and Palestine as separate tracks—has, in practice, evolved into a far more explicit alignment.
From Strategic Autonomy to Strategic Subservience
The government continues to defend its approach as “multi-alignment,” a pragmatic doctrine that allows India to engage all actors based on national interest. Yet critics argue that this framework masks a deeper shift. They contend that India is moving away from its tradition of independent foreign policy toward what can only be described as a pro-imperialist alignment, increasingly tethered to the strategic priorities of the United States and Israel.
This perception has been reinforced by India’s response to recent conflicts in West Asia. The absence of explicit condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza, combined with a notably restrained reaction to US-Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, has drawn sharp criticism. What is presented as neutrality is increasingly viewed as moral hesitation—or worse, silent endorsement.
Former diplomats and analysts have warned that such short-term accommodation of US preferences risks undermining India’s long-term strategic autonomy. A nation that once prided itself on independent judgement now risks appearing subordinate, its voice diminished in global affairs.
The Strategic Argument—and Its Limits
Supporters of the government’s policy point to clear strategic gains. Israel has emerged as one of India’s most significant defence partners, accounting for a substantial share of its arms imports between 2020 and 2024. The relationship has evolved beyond procurement into joint development, aligning with India’s ambitions for technological self-reliance. Cooperation extends into areas such as surveillance systems, missile defence, and unmanned aerial technologies, strengthening India’s military capabilities.
Economic considerations also play a role. Bilateral agreements have opened pathways for labour mobility, technology exchange, and investment. Following the Gaza war in October 2023, thousands of Indian workers were recruited to Israel to fill labour shortages created by the exclusion of Palestinian workers. By mid-2025, over 20,000 Indian labourers had entered Israel’s construction sector.
However, these developments are not without controversy. Reports have emerged of Indian workers facing unsafe conditions, exposure to conflict zones, and instances of exploitation, including confiscation of passports and coercion into hazardous work environments. Some workers have described their decision to migrate as a desperate economic necessity, even while acknowledging the risks involved.
Thus, even within the realm of economic and security cooperation, the ethical contradictions of the partnership become difficult to ignore.
The Global South Watches – and Judges
Perhaps the most profound consequence of India’s shifting stance is its impact on its reputation within the Global South. Across Africa, Latin America, and large parts of Asia, support for Palestine remains deeply rooted in shared histories of colonialism and resistance. India, once a leading voice in this moral and political framework, now appears increasingly out of step.
Analysts warn that this divergence risks eroding India’s credibility as a champion of post-colonial solidarity. Its nuanced or hesitant voting patterns at the United Nations, including abstentions on key resolutions concerning Gaza, have further fuelled perceptions of inconsistency.
In a world where alliances are shaped not only by power but by perception, such shifts carry significant consequences. India’s ability to lead, to build coalitions, and to influence global discourse depends as much on trust as it does on strength.
BRICS and the Emerging Multipolar Order
It is against this backdrop that the rise of BRICS assumes critical importance. No longer merely an economic grouping, BRICS is evolving into a platform for challenging Western dominance and promoting a multipolar world order. Many of its member states have taken clear positions on Palestine and have resisted alignment with US-Israel policies.
For India, this presents a strategic dilemma. While it seeks to play a leadership role within BRICS, its current foreign policy trajectory risks placing it at odds with the broader orientation of the bloc. If BRICS consolidates as a political force advocating for equity and sovereignty, India will be compelled to reconcile its Western alignments with its Global South aspirations.
This is not simply a question of diplomacy; it is a question of identity.
Energy, Economy, and Regional Stability
India’s engagement with West Asia is deeply intertwined with its economic and energy security. The region supplies a significant portion of India’s oil and gas, while millions of Indian citizens live and work in Gulf countries, contributing substantially to the national economy through remittances.
Any perception of bias in regional conflicts risks destabilising these relationships. Tensions with Iran, in particular, carry strategic implications. Iran remains a crucial partner for India’s access to Central Asia through the Chabahar port, and any strain in this relationship could undermine long-term geopolitical objectives.
At the same time, escalating conflicts in the region threaten to drive up energy prices and disrupt economic stability. In such a volatile environment, foreign policy must prioritise balance and foresight over short-term alignments.
The Moral Question Cannot Be Deferred
At its core, the debate over India’s foreign policy is a moral one. Can a nation that once stood at the forefront of anti-colonial struggles now remain silent in the face of perceived injustice? Can it uphold the language of democracy and human rights while deepening ties with a state accused of systematic violations of those very principles?
These questions strike at the heart of India’s identity.
The argument that national interest must override moral considerations is not new. Yet history suggests that moral clarity often enhances, rather than diminishes, strategic credibility. India’s greatest strength has always been its ability to combine principle with pragmatism—to navigate complex realities without losing sight of its values.
To abandon that balance is to risk losing both.
The Road Ahead: Reclaiming Balance
India’s future need not be defined by its current trajectory. There remains space for recalibration—for a return to a more balanced, independent, and principled foreign policy. This would require a consistent commitment to international law, a willingness to speak out against injustice regardless of the actor involved, and a renewed engagement with the Global South grounded in solidarity rather than expediency.
Platforms like BRICS offer an opportunity to shape a more equitable global order. But to do so credibly, India must align its actions with the values it seeks to promote.
Conclusion: Between Power and Principle
India today stands at a crossroads.
One path leads toward deeper integration with a Western strategic order marked by conflict and declining legitimacy. The other points toward a multipolar world in which nations assert independence, build equitable partnerships, and challenge entrenched hierarchies.
If India continues along its current course, it risks becoming a secondary actor in a system defined by others. If it reclaims its tradition of strategic autonomy, it has the potential to lead—not merely as a power, but as a principled voice in an increasingly fractured world.
The choice is urgent. The consequences will be lasting.
History, and the Global South, are watching.