Vishwaguru in search of disciples

In trying to please everyone, India is seen as neither fish nor fowl. India must rethink whether it can claim leadership of Global South by supporting a perspective not very different from the West

India's notion of being a Vishwaguru is turning hollow as India continues to be at odds with the countries of the Global South on Israel's war on Palestinians in Gaza. India did not vote with the Global South on the UN General Assembly resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. It has also refused to challenge the US discourse on the war through BRICS. 

An extraordinary BRICS virtual summit was called by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, the current chair of the BRICS group, on November 21 to discuss the Israel-Palestine situation. Despite India being a founder-member of BRICS, Prime Minister Narendra Modi absented himself citing ongoing state elections. Nevertheless, he expressed views on the issue via two virtual summits in the midst of his election campaigning -- the Voice of the Global South summit (November 17) and a G-20 summit (November 22).  

Consider the outcomes of these three "extraordinary" events. The BRICS summit, while stopping short of a joint declaration, nevertheless gave a definite call for an immediate end to Israel's war on Gaza. The chair's summary, capturing the predominant mood of the summit, read: "We condemn any kind of individual or mass forcible transfer and deportation of Palestinians from their own land." The BRICS leaders "reiterated that the forced transfer and deportation of Palestinians, whether inside Gaza or to neighbouring countries, constitute grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and war crimes and violations under International Humanitarian Law."

South Africa, along with Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros and Djibouti, has moved the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try Israel for war crimes. South Africa, which has severed diplomatic links with Israel, also plans to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to declare Israel an apartheid state. In effect, BRICS, which was created to counter the hegemony of the West, kept to its mission unambiguously. 

The interventions of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who stood in for the prime minister at the BRICS summit, did not reflect the sentiments of the Global South. He did not utter keywords of immediate import like "ceasefire" or "cessation of hostilities". Nor did he criticise the "collective punishment" being imposed on Gaza civilians by Israel. Instead, he talked of humanitarian aid, release of hostages and the "two-state" solution to the "conflict". He only echoed the US thinking on the war.

Contrast the BRICS outcome with that of the summits called by India. In the Voice of the Global South Summit, Prime Minister Modi skirted clear of a "ceasefire" demand. While unequivocal in condemning the terrorist attack by Hamas, he ignored Israel's brutal retaliation. He failed to capture the mood of the nations he was addressing, and just four days later, India was shown to be clearly at odds with the Global South at the BRICS summit.

The G20 virtual summit was unusual. The transition from the Indian presidency to Brazil's took place on September 10, the closing day of the G-20 annual summit. Though technically, the Indian term continues until November 30, after the ceremonial transfer, there is no precedent of the outgoing nation convening a virtual summit. 

It was not Israel's war on Gaza that prompted India to hold the unusual virtual G20 summit. Prime Minister Modi admitted in his opening remarks, "When I had proposed this virtual summit, there was no forecast of what the global situation would be today." Yet he went on to address "insecurity and instability in the West Asia region". He repeated homilies condemning terrorism and hostage-taking but offered no roadmap for peace. There was no expression of indignation at Israel's disproportionate response, which has already killed 14,500 Gazans (a third of them children), displaced 1.7 million in Gaza (total population of 2.3 million) and destroyed 45 per cent of all homes in Gaza. 

Yet Prime Minister Modi claimed that the G20 had reached "convergence" on various issues, including the conflict in West Asia, citing the "two-state solution" as an example. Jaishankar contradicted this within a few hours, stressing that there was no consensus on the "two-state solution".  

Why is India not able to take the moral stand on Palestine that has been a defining feature of its foreign policy in the past? One reason is that India's current BFF is the US, without whose military, financial and diplomatic support Israel would not survive. The other is the assumption of similarity of interests with Israel.

The fact is that India and Israel's adversaries are not the same, nor are the people's attitudes the same. The desire to find similarities with Israel and its attitudes, however, can lead India into dangerous territory – from admitting that it wants to be a majoritarian nation like Israel to comparing conflict zones like Kashmir with Palestine (an analogy used by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf during his Agra visit in 2008). 

Perhaps, as geopolitical pundits claim, changing geopolitics has prompted India to change its foreign policy. However, there is little by way of success to show for it.

Despite loosening its ties with Russia to get closer to the US, India's geopolitical manoeuvrability has been severely limited. On top of that, recent moves by the US to use India's alleged overreach in targeting Sikh terrorists abroad as a pressure point suggest that India is not doing enough to support its geostrategic positions. Hence, there is arm twisting to get India to stop wavering and fall in line.

A delegation from the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is visiting the P-5 and all the big countries supporting Israel. It aims to garner support for an urgent and long-term ceasefire in Gaza, allow more humanitarian aid for Gaza, and create an independent Palestinian state. Having visited China, the delegation is scheduled to visit India shortly, which could prove embarrassing. 

In trying to please everyone, India is seen as neither fish nor fowl. Therefore, India must think again whether it can still claim leadership of the Global South by supporting a perspective that is not very different from that of the West.