No tolerance for terror

India's UNGA vote on the Arab League resolution was appropriate

The Congress-led Opposition may have missed the mark in criticising the Indian government’s abstention from a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution calling for a humanitarian truce and ceasefire in Gaza, where the Israeli Defence Forces have begun a ground assault. The symbolic resolution was proposed by Jordan on behalf of the Arab League and passed by 120 votes in favour and 14 against with 45 abstentions. Among the abstainers, India joined Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. The latter group’s discomfort stemmed chiefly from the fact that the resolution made no acknowledgement or criticism of the barbaric acts of terrorism by Hamas on October 7, leaving 1,400 Israelis dead and 229 taken hostage. Although the resolution condemned all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, it made no specific reference to Hamas’ role. India had backed Canada’s proposal to “unequivocally reject and condemn” the Hamas attacks, but the amendment failed to garner the required two-thirds majority to pass. The accusation that India’s stand was shaped by US foreign policy interests would also be inaccurate. The US figured among the significant “no” voters, which included Austria, Hungary, Czechia, and a clutch of Pacific nations.

All told, India’s stand was appropriate and consistent with a long-held position across governments of zero tolerance for cross-border terrorism. Though India’s “Explanation on Vote” statement did not name Hamas, either, it described terrorism as a “malignancy” that knows no borders, nationality, or race, and underlined the fact that “the world should not buy into any justification of terror acts”. This is an entirely unexceptionable position, given that India faces constant instability on its northern borders as a result of cross-border terrorism and endured a three-day siege in Mumbai in 2008 by the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist group, which left some 175 people dead and hundreds more injured. On the Israel-Palestine dispute, India has underlined — again, across political regimes — the need for a peaceful and negotiated resolution of the two-state solution. Its recent contribution of humanitarian aid to civilians trapped in Gaza underlines this position. Some critics have pointed out that India’s latest vote at the UNGA has been at variance with previous votes in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza, such as in 2018, but those confrontations did not involve acts of terrorism.

At least part of the Opposition’s disappointment is the government’s failure to draw attention to Israel’s escalatory role in the crisis. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s blunt “not a time for war” advice to Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine crisis stands in contrast to his robustly supportive call to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the terror attack. The differences in the prime ministerial responses could be attributed to the degree of personal rapport as much as the presence or absence of the China factor. Certainly, India must not ignore Israel’s acts of omission and commission in the crisis, including establishing illegal settlements and attacking Palestinian worshippers in the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. This would comprehensively underline its diplomatic equi-distance from the main actors in this 75-year-old conflict.