New Delhi’s abstention on the UN Gaza ceasefire vote and its distancing from the SCO statement on Israel’s strikes in Iran have drawn criticism at home and raised questions abroad.
NEW DELHI —India’s recent decisions on two major flashpoints in the Middle East have ignited a debate over whether New Delhi is abandoning its long-held policy of non-alignment and support for dialogue-based conflict resolution.
New Delhi abstained from a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) vote calling for a Gaza ceasefire and distancing itself from a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) statement condemning Israel’s military strikes against Iran.
These positions have drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties at home, while also raising questions abroad about India’s balancing act in an increasingly polarised global order, especially as it aspires to be a leading voice of the Global South and a key player in multilateral platforms like BRICS and the SCO.
A departure from traditional stance?
India, once a steadfast advocate for Palestinian statehood and a vocal supporter of peace efforts in West Asia, has found itself on the defensive after choosing to abstain on the latest UNGA resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza.
The resolution, introduced by Spain, passed overwhelmingly with 149 votes in favour, 12 against, and 19 abstentions — India among them.
#BREAKING
— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) June 12, 2025
UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution that demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in the war in #Gaza.
In favor: 149
Against: 12
Abstain: 19 pic.twitter.com/HSZhxsY8Ru
Critics argue that this marks a stark departure from India’s vote just six months earlier when it supported a similar call for a ceasefire. The principal opposition party, the Congress, led the charge, accusing the Modi government of eroding India’s moral standing.
“India’s foreign policy is in a shambles,” said Mallikarjun Kharge, president of India’s main opposition Congress party, questioning whether India had “abandoned its principled stand advocating for ceasefire, peace and dialogue in West Asia.”
His colleague Priyanka Gandhi Vadra – a scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family – echoed the sentiment, saying that India’s abstention had left the country “virtually isolated” on the world stage.
It is shameful and disappointing that our government has chosen to abstain on the UN motion for the protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations in Gaza.
— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) June 14, 2025
60,000 people, mostly women and children have been killed already, an entire population is…
Similarly, India’s decision not to associate itself with an SCO statement that strongly condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran and affirmed Iran’s sovereignty has further fueled the perception that New Delhi is moving away from its non-aligned roots.
Balancing act or tilt?
India’s External Affairs Ministry has argued that these decisions are consistent with a policy of advocating dialogue and diplomacy while avoiding one-sided resolutions that, in New Delhi’s view, fail to account for the complexities on the ground.
Speaking to TRT World, former Secretary in India’s Ministry of External Affairs, Anil Wadhwa, offered insights into New Delhi’s rationale.
“India supports a ceasefire in Gaza but not if the resolution in the UNGA contains language that condemns Israel in no uncertain terms without balancing sentences or clauses,” Wadhwa explained. “Sometimes it is possible for the drafters to achieve a balanced resolution in order to garner more votes.”.
On the SCO statement, Wadhwa pointed out that India was not part of the discussions and had concerns about the content.
“The language in the SCO statement completely fails to mention the IAEA resolution on Iran’s enrichment programme and its findings. It is also devoid of any indication of Iran’s adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it has joined, or respecting the IAEA’s concerns regarding stockpiling of refined nuclear material,” he noted
Such nuanced positions, however, have left India open to allegations of leaning toward Israel, driven by deepening defence ties, economic considerations, and ongoing arms exports. Wadhwa rejected the idea that India was abandoning its traditional friendships, particularly with Iran.
“India’s stance is based on balancing its interests but at the same time ensuring that the resolutions passed or decisions taken in international fora are balanced and not one-sided,” he said.
Views from the SCO: Differing diplomatic styles
Former Kyrgyzstan Prime Minister Djoomart Otorbaev cautioned against overstating any perceived divisions within the SCO over the Israel-Iran conflict and India’s position.
“Recent ‘sensational’ reports suggesting a major rift within the SCO regarding the Israeli-Iranian military conflict are premature,” Otorbaev told TRT World.
“India has released its statement on the conflict, somewhat milder than the SCO’s, but such minor differences in tone should not be misconstrued as fractures in the organisation.”
Our Statement on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)⬇️
— Randhir Jaiswal (@MEAIndia) June 14, 2025
🔗 https://t.co/bvBnmlSMX9 pic.twitter.com/ZHqCyHFvHs
He highlighted the importance of seeing India’s approach as part of its broader diplomatic strategy.
“India continues to engage in ongoing dialogue with both Iran and Israel. External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s discussions with his counterparts reflect the global community’s deep concern regarding rising tensions,” Otorbaev explained.
He further emphasised the shared strategic interests binding India and many SCO members, especially in Central Asia.
“India’s interests align well with most SCO countries, particularly its strong ties with Iran, which offers critical access to Central Asia. Initiatives like the North-South Strategic Transport Corridor (NSTC) exemplify this collaboration, with India investing significantly in infrastructure such as the Chabahar Port,” he noted.
In his assessment, “While India’s position on this conflict is more diplomatic and nuanced, it mirrors the stances of many countries in the Global South. The SCO will continue evolving, advocating peaceful development that benefits all member states.”
Implications for Iran ties and Global South leadership
Iran has historically been a key partner for India, from energy security to connectivity projects like the Chabahar Port. Some analysts fear that India’s recent stances could create friction in that relationship. But Wadhwa believes the ties are resilient.
“Iran is aware of India’s stance on the enrichment issue. This is not the first time that it has voted the way it did in the IAEA. Every time a vote takes place, India has explained its position clearly,” Wadhwa said.
On the broader question of India’s aspirations to be a bridge between the Global South and major powers, the abstention at the UNGA has raised eyebrows.
While most of the Global South, including key BRICS and SCO partners, backed the Gaza ceasefire resolution, India joined a small group of abstainers that included Timor-Leste, Paraguay, and Argentina.
Could this erode India’s credibility as a vocal member of the Global South? Wadhwa dismissed such concerns.
“India’s aspirations as a leader of the Global South will continue. India’s stance is also known within BRICS. Within the SCO, India has an independent voice and is not a follower of China or Russia,” he emphasised.
The fallout from India’s decisions could be felt within groupings like BRICS and the SCO, where unity on global issues has been a point of strength. India’s reluctance to sign on to collective statements could complicate efforts to present a unified front on international law, sovereignty, and conflict resolution.
Experts like Otorbaev underscore that while unity is prized, the SCO respects the sovereignty and independent diplomatic choices of its members. This nuanced dynamic may be tested, but is unlikely to unravel the organisation’s core cohesion.
India’s Middle East policy — long admired for its ability to engage all sides — now faces its sternest test, according to analysts As the region becomes a flashpoint in global rivalries, New Delhi’s effort to walk the tightrope between its strategic, economic, and moral imperatives is becoming ever more challenging, they say.
C. TRT World
