India's abstention in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution vote regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict has generated significant discussion and analysis. This decision has led to questions about India's stance on the conflict and its evolving foreign policy. In this essay, we will explore in detail the reasons behind India's abstention, the historical context of its voting patterns on the Israel-Palestine issue, and the broader implications of this shift in India's foreign policy.
Understanding India's Abstention
On October 26, the UNGA voted on a resolution that called for an "immediate, durable, and sustained humanitarian truce" in the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Hamas. The resolution received support from 120 member countries, with 14 countries voting against it, and India decided to abstain. This abstention has raised questions about the factors influencing India's vote and its alignment with the international community.
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar explained India's decision by emphasising India's historical position on terrorism and the nation's status as a victim of terrorism. However, there are deeper layers to this decision. India was dissatisfied with the UNGA resolution's lack of explicit condemnation of the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas, in which 1,405 Israelis lost their lives, and approximately 240 were taken as hostages by Hamas militants. While the resolution condemned acts of violence against Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including terrorism, and called for the immediate unconditional release of hostages, it did not include the explicit condemnation India sought.
This deviation from India's conventional voting behaviour is a significant departure and has sparked discussions about India's foreign policy approach and its stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
A Break from the Past
To comprehend the significance of India's abstention, it's essential to examine the historical context of India's stance on the Israel-Palestine issue. Historically, India had been known for its staunch support of the Palestinian cause. India voted against the partition of Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. It was the first non-Arab state to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people and to recognize Palestine as a state in 1988. Over the years, India consistently voted against Israel at the United Nations.
However, as India established full diplomatic ties with Israel in the 1990s, its stance began to evolve. India started abstaining from many votes that criticised Israel or called for international tribunals on its treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. In 1991, India voted to revoke a resolution that equated Zionism with "racism and racial discrimination." In the 2010s, India tempered its votes on anti-Israel resolutions. This shift became more noticeable after 2014, particularly in the aftermath of 2019, when India began abstaining or even voting against resolutions that involved international inquiries into Israeli actions.
To understand the magnitude of this shift, let's compare India's vote at the recent UNGA session on Israeli actions with its vote in 2018. In 2018, India voted in favour of a resolution that deplored "the use of any excessive, disproportionate, and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and particularly in the Gaza Strip," at a time when over 220 Palestinians had lost their lives. However, in the face of the recent Israel-Hamas conflict that resulted in more than 9,000 deaths, including 3,000 children, with Israeli forces targeting hospitals and refugee camps in their pursuit of Hamas leaders and Israeli hostages, India chose to abstain. This shift in India's voting behaviour is evident and substantial.
Significance of India's Stand
India's abstention in the UNGA resolution vote has elicited a mixed response from the international community. Israel appreciated India's support, even though it had hoped for a vote against the resolution. Other countries that abstained included India's Quad partners, Australia and South Korea, and NATO members like Canada and several European countries. In contrast, many of India's South Asian neighbours, the entire Arab world (with the exception of Tunisia), and most Global South countries voted in favour of the resolution.
This abstention signifies a significant shift in India's alignment on future votes related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. If this marks a concrete move in favour of Israel, it is evident which groupings India would find itself closer to. However, some argue that India's abstention is more about maintaining a "tightrope balance" between conflicting sides in an increasingly polarised world, rather than committing to a specific policy.
India has demonstrated a consistent pattern of abstaining from resolutions critical of various countries in recent years. This pattern extends to issues such as Russia's operations in Ukraine, Syria's ceasefire, and the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. It's not just about Israel; it reflects a broader approach to global issues that involve major international players.
India's recent abstention on the UNGA resolution regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict is undoubtedly a significant departure from its historical voting record. It indicates a shift in India's foreign policy approach, which seems to prioritise maintaining a balance between conflicting sides in various global issues. This approach reflects India's desire to avoid antagonising any particular party in an increasingly polarised world.
However, it's crucial for India to clarify its foreign policy stance on specific issues and communicate its rationale more effectively. The world is watching, and India's foreign policy decisions have far-reaching implications. Striking the right balance between strategic interests and ethical considerations will be a continuous challenge for India on the global stage. India's evolving foreign policy is a reflection of its growing role and influence in international affairs, and it must navigate these complexities with care and clarity.
0 Comments