'Stony Silence' or Strategic Positioning? What India Has Actually Said and Done on Gaza

The Accusation

On June 27, 2026, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi published an article in The Indian Express calling the Modi government's position on Gaza a "stony silence" that "cannot be explained rationally or morally."

She cited the UN Commission of Inquiry's 94-page report — now headed by retired Indian Justice S. Muralidhar — which concluded that Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, with at least 20,000 children killed and 97% of schools destroyed. She called Modi's February 2026 visit to Israel a "bewildering strategic decision." She described India as "a lone voice of silence" amid growing international recognition of Israeli actions as genocide.

The accusation is specific: India is silent on Gaza. The question is whether the record supports that characterisation — or whether it reveals something more complicated than silence.

What India Has Actually Said — The UN Voting Record

India's position on Gaza cannot be described as uniform silence. It is a pattern of selective engagement — supporting some resolutions, abstaining on others, and avoiding the specific language the international community has increasingly adopted.

October 2023: India abstained on UNGA Resolution ES-10/21 calling for an "immediate and unconditional ceasefire." EAM Jaishankar said India could not support a resolution that did not explicitly condemn the Hamas attack of October 7.

December 2023: India voted in favour of a UNGA resolution demanding an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent" ceasefire in Gaza.

December 2024: India again voted in favour of a similar UNGA ceasefire resolution.

June 2025: India abstained on a UNGA resolution calling for an arms embargo against Israel. Over 120 countries voted in favour.

Throughout 2024–2026: India has supported UNGA resolutions condemning Israel's settlement expansion in the West Bank, while abstaining on or voting against resolutions that specifically condemned Israeli military operations.

What India Has Not Said

India has never used the word "genocide" to describe Israeli actions in Gaza — despite the ICJ proceedings, the ICC arrest warrants, and the UN Commission's findings (now headed by an Indian jurist).

India has never called for an arms embargo against Israel.

India has never called Israeli military operations in Gaza disproportionate in its official statements — a characterisation that even the US, UK, and France have used in joint statements.

India's MEA statements on Gaza have consistently followed a formula: condemnation of the October 7 Hamas attack, call for ceasefire, call for release of hostages, call for humanitarian assistance. This formula has remained unchanged for over two years, regardless of escalation on the ground.

What India Has Actually Done — The Diplomatic Record

Beyond words and votes, India's actions tell a more specific story.

February 2026: Modi visited Israel — the second Indian PM to do so — and addressed the Knesset (a first for any Indian leader). Netanyahu introduced him as "Narendra, my dear friend" and praised him: "You didn't flinch. You didn't waver. You stood by Israel." The visit produced 27 bilateral outcomes, elevated the relationship to a "Special Strategic Partnership," and included a defence cooperation MOU for joint development and production of military equipment.

The visit's timing was notable: it occurred in the midst of the Gaza conflict, just days before the US-Israel joint strikes on Iran. Sonia Gandhi described this as a "bewildering strategic decision."

Labour: India has facilitated the employment of Indian workers in Israel — an agreement for 50,000 workers over five years was announced during the February visit. These workers are, in practice, replacing Palestinian labour that can no longer access Israeli worksites.

Defence trade: India-Israel military trade is estimated at $8.6 billion in 2026, with Israel among India's top four arms suppliers and India purchasing approximately 40% of Israeli military hardware. The November 2025 MOU provides for joint development and production with advanced technology transfer.

Ports: Adani Ports operates the Haifa port — Israel's most strategically important maritime facility.

Operation Sindoor: When India conducted airstrikes in retaliation for the Pahalgam attack in April 2025, Israel was among the first countries to express support. Israel called it a "measured and decisive response to terrorism."

Two Arguments — Neither Complete

Sonia Gandhi's Argument: Moral and Strategic Failure

Gandhi's case rests on three pillars: India's anti-colonial heritage demands solidarity with Palestinians; the international consensus (ICJ, ICC, UN Commission, South Africa's case, European arms restrictions, Latin American diplomatic downgrades) demands that India acknowledge what is happening; and national interest demands India align with the Global South's position rather than isolate itself.

She cited specific data: 20,000 children killed, 44,000 wounded, 97% of schools destroyed, 300% increase in miscarriage complications, the story of Hind Rajab (five years old, killed along with her family and two paramedics).

The Government's Implicit Argument: Strategic Realism

The Modi government has not published a formal rebuttal to Gandhi's article. But its actions constitute an argument: India's relationship with Israel delivers defence technology that India needs, intelligence cooperation that serves India's security, and strategic alignment with the US-Israel axis that has paid dividends (US support during Operation Sindoor, technology transfers, trade expansion).

The government's position — never formally stated as such — appears to be that moral positioning on Gaza is subordinate to strategic gain from the Israel relationship. The de-hyphenation policy (maintaining separate Israel and Palestine tracks) is the institutional framework for this calculus.

The Data That Neither Side Addresses

The Historical Shift Is Measurable

India's position on Palestine has shifted measurably since 2014. The trajectory:

• Pre-2014: India systematically voted in support of Palestine at the UNGA and other multilateral forums. India recognised the State of Palestine in 1988. India was among the first non-Arab states to recognise the PLO.

• 2014–2023: India moved to "hedging" — supporting some pro-Palestine resolutions, abstaining on others that specifically condemned Israel, and occasionally voting in Israel's favour on resolutions targeting terrorist organisations.

• 2024–2026: India elevated its relationship with Israel to "Special Strategic Partnership," addressed the Knesset, facilitated labour replacement, expanded defence trade to $8.6 billion, and operated Israel's most important port — while continuing to formally support a two-state solution.

This is not silence. It is a measurable diplomatic realignment — from systematic pro-Palestine positioning to strategic partnership with Israel, conducted incrementally over 12 years.

The Justice Muralidhar Question

The UN Commission of Inquiry's June 2026 report — which Sonia Gandhi cites — is headed by Justice (retired) S. Muralidhar, a former judge of the Delhi and Orissa High Courts and one of India's most respected jurists.

An Indian jurist heads the commission that has concluded Israel is committing genocide. The Indian government has not commented on his findings. This specific silence — on a report authored by a distinguished Indian judge — is perhaps more revealing than India's broader positioning on Gaza.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has India been silent on Gaza?

Not entirely. India has voted in favour of UNGA ceasefire resolutions, called for humanitarian assistance, and formally supports a two-state solution. However, India has never used the word "genocide," never called for an arms embargo, and never described Israeli operations as disproportionate — positions that most of the international community has taken.

What did Sonia Gandhi say?

In a June 27, 2026 Indian Express article, she called the Modi government's position a "stony silence" that is "morally reprehensible" and "inexplicable from a national interest perspective." She cited the UN Commission's findings of genocide and called Modi's Israel visit a "bewildering strategic decision."

What is India's strategic relationship with Israel?

India and Israel elevated ties to a "Special Strategic Partnership" in February 2026. Military trade is estimated at $8.6 billion. India buys 40% of Israeli military hardware. Adani Ports operates Haifa. 50,000 Indian workers are being sent to Israel over five years.

The Bottom Line

Sonia Gandhi calls it "stony silence." The record shows it is not silence. It is a specific set of diplomatic choices — votes cast, votes abstained, words used, words avoided, visits made, partnerships signed, workers sent, ports operated — that together constitute a measurable shift from India's historical pro-Palestine positioning to strategic alignment with Israel.

Whether this shift represents "strategic realism" (the government's implicit argument) or "moral cowardice" (the opposition's explicit accusation) is a political judgment. The data supports neither characterisation fully.

What the data does show: India's position is not an absence of policy. It is a policy. It is a policy of strategic partnership with Israel, formal support for a two-state solution, avoidance of the word genocide, and silence on an Indian jurist's commission report — all held simultaneously, all internally consistent, and all designed to extract maximum strategic benefit while minimising moral positioning.

Whether that is defensible is not a question data can answer. But the data can — and does — establish that it is deliberate.