Beyond the ideological perch: Why strategic realism underpins Modi’s visit to Israel

In October 1962, at one of the most precarious moments of India’s early nationhood, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion requesting military assistance as Chinese forces advanced across the Himalayan frontier.

The request carried a revealing hesitation. Nehru suggested that Israeli ships delivering arms should avoid displaying their national flag, reflecting India’s desire to keep such cooperation out of international glare. Israel refused. Ben-Gurion agreed to assist, but only under Israel’s flag. India accepted.

The correspondence, later revealed through archival material, made public during the 2017 commemoration of twenty five years of full diplomatic relations between India and Israel, mirrored a structural tension. India’s engagement with Israel began not in diplomatic clarity, but in historical hesitation.

That hesitation was not merely about optics. It reflected a deeper effort to reconcile moral commitments, geopolitical compulsions, and national security needs. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Israel today amid global scrutiny of the Gaza conflict, that same structural balancing remains visible, though expressed with confidence and fewer constraints.

Present-day criticisms and calibrated diplomacy

The present visit has triggered criticism in sections of political and diplomatic commentary, particularly in light of civilian casualties in Gaza and international calls for restraint.

Similar tensions surfaced in October 2023, when India abstained from a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. That abstention drew criticism from opposition parties, sections of civil society, and international observers who viewed it as a departure from India’s traditional pro-Palestinian posture.

Yet India’s subsequent vote in favour of a humanitarian ceasefire resolution in December 2023 demonstrated the calibrated nature of its diplomacy. India condemned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, while also emphasising humanitarian access, civilian protection, and diplomatic resolution. These shifts were not inconsistent. They reflected an active balancing process shaped by evolving realities.

Last year, this calibrated approach was also visible in India’s response to US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic push to secure a ceasefire and negotiated de-escalation during the Gaza conflict.

India did not become a formal participant in externally structured peace negotiations, but it publicly supported efforts to end military hostilities and restore stability. By emphasising ceasefire, diplomacy, and negotiated settlement, India reinforced its consistent position that engagement with Israel would proceed alongside its support for the peaceful resolution of the Palestinian question, rather than in contradiction to it.

That balancing instinct has deep historical roots. In the initial years after India’s independence, India’s support for Palestine was shaped by both moral identification and strategic prudence.

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, India’s envoy to the United Nations, understood the importance of Arab diplomatic goodwill, particularly at a time when India’s position on Kashmir faced persistent international contestation. Public alignment with Palestine and distance from Israel helped prevent Arab states from drifting toward Pakistan’s diplomatic position.

During the Cold War, India’s strategic proximity to the Soviet Union reinforced this posture. In 1975, India voted in favour of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which controversially declared Zionism a form of racism. That vote reflected the dominant geopolitical alignments of the era and India’s broader positioning within the Non-Aligned Movement and developing world solidarity.

The resolution itself was later revoked in 1991, and India’s own relationship with Israel entered a new phase soon after. The episode illustrated how India’s Middle East diplomacy was shaped not by fixed ideological hostility, but by the strategic currents of its time.

A turning point

The transformation became visible in 1992, when India established full diplomatic relations with Israel under Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. Since then, engagement has deepened steadily, particularly in defence and security cooperation.

Israel emerged as one of India’s most reliable defence partners, especially during moments of crisis. During the Kargil conflict in 1999, Israel supplied India with artillery ammunition, surveillance drones, and laser-guided munitions at short notice, providing operational support when other suppliers hesitated. That episode marked a turning point in defence trust between the two countries.

Defence cooperation has since expanded across multiple domains. Israel has supplied India with Phalcon airborne warning and control systems, Heron and Searcher unmanned aerial vehicles, Barak-8 surface-to-air missile systems jointly developed with India, and advanced surveillance technologies.

These platforms have strengthened India’s air defence, reconnaissance, and border monitoring capabilities. Intelligence cooperation between the two countries has also deepened, particularly in counterterrorism.

Both nations have faced persistent terrorist threats and have developed institutional channels for intelligence sharing and security coordination. This shared security experience has created a strategic convergence that extends beyond transactional arms transfers.

In recent years, New Delhi’s diplomatic approach has reinforced this strategic engagement while preserving India’s balancing framework. Modi’s visit to Israel in 2017 marked the first standalone visit by an Indian Prime Minister to the country, signalling the normalisation of political engagement at the highest level.

Yet this was followed in February 2018 by Modi’s independent visit to Palestine, where he reaffirmed India’s support for Palestinian statehood and development assistance. That sequence reflected deliberate diplomatic signalling. India was demonstrating that engagement with Israel would not come at the cost of abandoning Palestine.

An indicator of the strategic effect of this partnership was also evident during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, when India carried out strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan following a major civilian attack.

Israel publicly affirmed its support for India’s right to defend itself against terrorism, marking a clear diplomatic expression of solidarity. This overt backing reflected the extent to which India-Israel relations have moved beyond earlier caution into a phase of open strategic convergence, even as India continues to emphasise restraint and diplomatic resolution in managing broader regional tensions.

The tightrope walk in Gaza

India’s diplomatic conduct since the Gaza conflict began in October 2023 has followed this established pattern. India condemned the attacks on Israeli civilians, consistent with its longstanding opposition to terrorism. At the same time, India expressed concern about civilian casualties in Gaza and emphasised humanitarian access and peaceful resolution.

India’s abstention in October 2023 reflected its reluctance to endorse resolutions that did not explicitly condemn terrorism. Its subsequent vote in favour of a humanitarian ceasefire reflected its concern for civilian protection.

These calibrated positions drew criticism from different directions. Some critics argued that India was moving too close to Israel. Others argued that India’s ceasefire vote signalled insufficient solidarity with Israel. Such criticism itself reflects the complexity of India’s balancing act.

The Indian PM’s current visit can be understood within this broader strategic and diplomatic context. Israel today is an important partner in India’s defence modernisation, technological advancement, and security cooperation.

Bilateral trade in the defence and technology sectors has grown steadily. Cooperation in agriculture, water management, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity has expanded. Israeli agricultural technologies have contributed to India’s micro-irrigation and water efficiency initiatives. These partnerships directly support India’s developmental and security objectives.

At the same time, India has maintained its independent diplomatic voice on the Palestinian question. India has consistently supported a negotiated two-state solution.

It has provided development assistance to Palestinian institutions. It has engaged diplomatically with the Palestinian leadership. India welcomed normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab countries, recognising their stabilising potential, while preserving its own principled diplomatic positions.

The contrast between Nehru’s hesitant request in 1962 and Modi’s open engagement today reflects the evolution of India’s geopolitical confidence.

In Nehru’s time, India’s diplomatic elbow room was constrained by economic vulnerability, Cold War alignments, and dependence on external political support. Engagement with Israel had to be managed discreetly. Today, India’s economic strength, strategic partnerships, and global influence allow it to pursue engagement openly while maintaining diplomatic balance.

Continuity amidst change

Yet continuity remains as important as change. India sought Israeli assistance when national security required it, even during periods of public diplomatic distance. It supported Palestinian aspirations while gradually expanding strategic engagement with Israel.

It navigated criticism and competing pressures while preserving its independent judgment. These patterns remain visible today. Such an intricate subtext of continuity beneath the imprint of change aligns with India’s diplomatic register. India’s diplomatic tradition.

It reflects the maturation of a long-evolving relationship shaped by realism, strategic autonomy, and historical experience. The hesitation of the past has given way to navigation in the present. India engages Israel not as an ideological choice, but as a strategic necessity, balanced by its enduring commitment to diplomacy, humanitarian principles, and independent foreign policy judgment.

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.