Amidst the criticism, India aspires for a more decisive role in world affairs

India’s locus standi last year on issues which came before the UN and the difference now has demonstrated how important it is to get a permanent seat in the Security Council and have parity with the most influential nations of the world.

Resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly are mere storms in teacups when they are about issues that have led to grave crises, topical and in immediate need of global action. They are non-binding in the first place, so no one cares about them. In reality, it makes no difference whether such resolutions are adopted by the General Assembly or rejected.

Therefore, the political slugfest, the roaring editorials and the charged television studio debates in India since October 27 on the Narendra Modi Government’s decision to abstain from voting on a resolution on West Asia are ingredients for a tsunami in a teacup. The General Assembly passed the resolution calling for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce” between Israeli forces and Hamas militants in Gaza with a mandatory two-thirds majority. In the General Assembly’s ornate hall, where a debate and voting took place, it mattered little that India abstained from casting its ballot on the resolution. Under Rule 126 (86) of the General Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, countries which have abstained on such resolutions are not considered as having voted.

India Missing Security Council Membership

India is no longer a member of the UN Security Council. India’s abstentions at every UN organ on resolutions about the Russia-Ukraine conflict last year were taken note of and acted upon in chancelleries in world capitals because India was then one of the 10 elected members of the Security Council. Sometimes this 15-member body fails to act – as in the current West Asia crisis – but by and large its decisions have consequences. Many dictators like Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq – the latter after he invaded Kuwait in 1990 – found out to their severe detriment what it meant to defy the Security Council. Since India’s term in the Security Council ended on December 31, 2022, India is just one of the 193 members of the UN, the same as Micronesia, Nauru or Liechtenstein.

There is a school of thought in India with influential backers who believe that this country’s continuing quest for a permanent seat in the Security Council is a waste of time, energy and resources. India works through multiple alliances like the Group of Four – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – and the L69 Group for comprehensive UN reforms - to make slow, but steady, progress in this important quest. It is often a case of one step backward, two steps forward because there are several powerful countries and groups of nations, which do not want to end the current monopoly of seats at the Council’s famous horseshoe table. India’s locus standi last year on issues which came before the UN and the difference now has demonstrated how important it is to get a permanent seat in the Security Council and have parity with the most influential nations of the world.

No Shift In Policy Towards Israel

An important ingredient in the teacup tsunami over India’s abstention last week is the misconception that it constituted a singular, conscious shift in policy by the Modi Government in support of Israel. In her “Explanation of Vote” on October 27, India’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Yojna Patel, mostly paraphrased Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi’s comments five days after Hamas intruded into Israel. Bagchi’s briefing, the first institutional comment by the MEA on the latest escalation in West Asia was a reiteration of Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao’s policy after his government established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992.

It may appear fanciful under the present circumstances to hear India reiterating its support for a two-state solution in pre-World War II Palestine. Rao’s policy was that following full recognition, India would pursue economic and strategic engagement with Israel, but not resort to political engagement. Israel wanted political engagement then too, but successive governments in New Delhi have remained faithful to Rao’s policy. That still remains the case notwithstanding disinformation to the contrary in recent weeks. When the I2U2 (India-Israel-United Arab Emirates-United States) group convened their first leaders’ meeting in July last year, there was much talk about a “western Quad.” Senior Indian officials were quick to disabuse those who were engaging in such flights of fancy, which would have been tantamount to politically engaging Israel.

Publicly, Israelis in all walks of life and at all levels go overboard all the time in praise for their relations with Indians. However, at closed-door forums and in the background, they express frustration that the bilateral relationship has hit a plateau and is at a dead end except in a handful of sectors. There is no vision for this relationship unlike India-US relations or even India-Singapore relations. One reason for this is Israel’s geography. The other is the lack of compatibility between the economies of India and Israel.

But India’s Relations Are Transactional Now

What has changed in South Block, the MEA headquarters, is that India’s relations worldwide are transactional now, like never before. Indira Gandhi belonged to the Third World. Her values were shaped by decolonisation which she experienced. Modi’s India does not talk about developing countries the way previous prime ministers did.

When they promote the “Global South” they are not merely promoting a change in nomenclature. They are implementing policy changes and practices that come with India’s new anchor in their world view. On the General Assembly resolution on West Asia, India abstained along with South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and similar countries.

India now believes that it is with such countries that it should stand shoulder-to-shoulder. Not just on Israel and Palestine, but on a host of other issues, India will no longer vote with Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua or Venezuela – as it once used to – at the UN or other such forums.

KP Nayar has extensively covered West Asia and reported from Washington as a foreign correspondent for 15 years. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.