How India’s vote in UN on Palestine reflects continuity, not a shift in policy

Ever since conflict broke out in Gaza, at the start of October, India’s position has been heavily criticised with some analysts saying, “Gaza is the latest manifestation of a perceptible change in India’s view of the world.” There is no doubt that New Delhi’s camaraderie has indeed grown with Tel Aviv, especially under Prime Minister Narendra Modi but Indian foreign policy is beyond the Prime Minister’s individual relationships, rather it is defined by the international rules based order. India’s vote at the UN General Assembly Emergency Special Session (ESS) held on December 12, in favour of an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” was indeed a welcome move, especially after New Delhi received heavy criticism and rightly so, for abstaining on a previous ESS resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities. This recent vote was also labelled as a shift in position, by some. However, I argue that India maintains continuity on Israel-Palestine, with the principle of proportionality at the centre of its foreign policy outcomes. Rule 14 of the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, on proportionality in attack outlines, “Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.” This clearly depicts that if an armed attack leads to significant loss of civilian life that might not be proportionate to expected military gains then such an attack violates international humanitarian law. At the time India voted on December 12, the death toll of Palestinians in Gaza had already reached the 18,000 mark. This number indeed is disproportionate to any actual and even notional gain that Israel has achieved militarily against Hamas to justify its horrendous slaughter of civilian population. However, the lacuna of principle of proportionality lies in the fact that there is no metric which can determine what number of civilians killed, amounts to a disproportionate attack, thus, while India’s abstention on October 27 might seem to defy morality, New Delhi in no way flouted the principle of proportionality, maintaining continuity in the age old conflict. India’s no tolerance policy towards terrorism became the cornerstone for its abstention earlier at the ESS as mentioned in its explanation of vote (EOV). It was something that India did press for even in the December session of the ESS when it voted in favour on two amendments by the United States and Austria condemning the attack against Israel on October 7. But even New Delhi’s no tolerance policy towards terrorism does not displace international humanitarian law principles. The criticism outlining that New Delhi had an explicit shift of position on the Israel-Palestine issue finds its root in Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeting solidarity towards Israel and reemphasising the same on a phone call with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu. On this, firstly, India having witnessed the brunt of terrorism, the solidarity towards Israel was from the perspective of underlining India’s no tolerance policy towards terrorism. Second, the PM’s solidarity towards Israel and the statement made by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) about support for a two-state solution needs to be viewed individually, instead of its statement being seen as a carefully crafted script to not water down the PM’s response. Furthermore, India’s voting pattern in the past is a testament across various UN General Assembly resolutions to substantiate the premise that India’s actions at the UN on global conflicts have always been aligned with the Principle of Proportionality. For instance, in 2018, India abstained on draft resolution A/73/L.42 of the UN General Assembly condemning activities of Hamas which highlighted that attacks by Hamas could jeopardise civilian lives. But civilian lives lost at that time due to the activities of Hamas were not that large in number to call for a violation of the principle of proportionality, resulting in New Delhi’s abstention. To every critic who has called India’s December 12 vote as a marker for shifting position should trace back a similar vote in the ESS for resolution ES-10/20 that took place on June 13, 2018 condemning the indiscriminate Israel attacks against peaceful protestors of the ‘Great March of Return’. In this resolution as well, under the current administration of Modi, India had voted in favour of condemning Israel’s actions as they flouted principles of proportionality. Any discussion that takes place on India and its voting record at the UN vis-á-vis the question of Palestine has to be understood from a nuanced perspective as New Delhi’s position has never been unidimensional on the issue at hand. Thus, India’s votes at the UN also have favoured the two sides on different occasions, making it imperative to understand that New Delhi’s votes on the question of Palestine are issue driven and not an indicator of allegiance. Lastly, India abstains on majority of the resolutions on the question of Palestine which does open India to criticism on its moral position across such conflicts, but India upholds the principle of proportionality on every account throughout its voting record at the UN on this issue, maintaining continuity. The author is manager, Aakhya India. He tweets at @ArkoprabhoH. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.