From non-alignment to strategic partnership: India's ideological shift toward Israel

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak* 

India's historical foreign policy maintained a notable duality: offering sanctuary to persecuted Jewish communities dating back centuries, while simultaneously supporting Palestinian self-determination as an expression of its broader anti-colonial foreign policy commitments. The gradual shift in Indian foreign policy under Hindutva-aligned governance — moving toward a strategic partnership with Israel while reducing substantive engagement with the Palestinian cause — raises legitimate questions about ideological motivation and geopolitical consequence.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visits to Israel, and the warmth displayed between Modi and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reflect more than diplomatic courtesy. Critics argue they signal a deeper ideological alignment. Both leaders have faced domestic criticism for governance approaches that, opponents say, prioritize majoritarian identity politics over pluralistic civic traditions. Whether or not one accepts this characterization in full, the convergence deserves scrutiny.

Hindutva and Zionism are both nationalist ideological movements that emerged partly in response to historical persecution and colonial-era politics. Both seek to ground national identity in ethnic and religious particularity. Supporters of each argue this is a legitimate expression of self-determination for historically marginalized peoples. Critics, however, contend that when translated into state policy, both ideologies have at times marginalized minority populations — Muslims in India, and Palestinians in Israeli-controlled territories — and concentrated political power in ways that strain democratic norms and minority rights.

The historical record adds complexity. Hindutva's early ideologues did express admiration for European ethnic nationalist movements of the 1930s, a fact that remains a source of serious criticism. Zionism's early history includes controversial interactions with various European powers during a period in which Jewish communities faced existential threat. Partisans on both sides dispute how these historical episodes should be interpreted, but they remain relevant to understanding the ideological DNA of each movement.

It is worth noting that criticism of Hindutva and Zionism as political ideologies is not the same as criticism of Hinduism or Judaism as religions, nor of Indian or Israeli citizens broadly. Many Hindus and Jews — including historians, civil society actors, and political figures within both countries — have voiced principled opposition to the policies and rhetoric of the ruling political tendencies in each country. Their dissent reflects genuine internal debate rather than monolithic support.

The India-Israel relationship has deepened across several dimensions, including defense cooperation, technology, and counterterrorism coordination. Proponents argue these serve legitimate national security interests. Critics argue the partnership normalizes policies toward Palestinians that much of the international community considers violations of international law, and that it represents a departure from India's historically nonaligned and pro-self-determination foreign policy.

At stake in this debate are foundational questions: Can nationalist movements grounded in religious or ethnic identity govern pluralistically? What obligations do states have toward minority citizens and stateless peoples? And how should democracies balance security interests against human rights commitments in their foreign partnerships?

These are not questions with easy answers. But they are questions that citizens in India, Israel, and beyond have both the right and the responsibility to ask — openly, critically, and without surrendering to the kind of demonization that forecloses genuine political understanding.

---

*Academic based in UK