The Indian government’s decision to abstain from the UN General Assembly vote in the 10th Emergency Special Session of the Assembly (in which 193 members convened) on 27 October 2023 on a resolution that urged for an immediate humanitarian truce in the Israel-Hamas conflict, as expected, has produced severe criticism from the opposition parties within the country.

In a social media post, Congress leader Priyanka GandhiVadra has written, “To refuse to take a stand and watch in silence as every law of humanity is pulverised goes against everything our country has stood for throughout its life as a nation.” The Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s Sitaram Yechury and CPI’s D. Raja issued a joint statement, claiming that India’s abstention “negates its long-standing support to the Palestinian cause” and is “shaped by being a subordinate ally of U.S. imperialism.”

The All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi has pointed out that the issue was “humanitarian,” and “not a political one” at all and that India’s abstention has made it “alone” in the “Global South, in South Asia & in BRICS.”

India’s abstention indeed needs to be seriously examined as it radically differs from a previous vote in favour of a UNGA resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza in 2018 and such other votes cast by the country in the past. By adopting abstention, India has chosen a third path by not making itself a party to the Palestine-Israel binary.

But sometimes silences are ominous. Instead of questioning the ‘for/against’ binary and opening up new possibilities, they make one, unknowingly, a party to the division that the binary suggests. Is it India’s case this time? Has the silence of India in the UN vote obliquely made the country a supporter of the Israeli cause? In the UNGA special session, the resolution, titled the “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” was proposed by Jordan on behalf of the Arab League and co-sponsored by about 40 countries. It was passed with 120 votes in favour, 14 (including the U.S. and U.K.) against, and 45 abstentions, including India.

The resolution condemns “all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction” but does not specifically refer to the terror attacks by Hamas on 7 October 2023. The resolution also asks for unobstructed humanitarian access in the entire Gaza strip. The US was extremely unhappy about the resolution.

The US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, in her comments before the vote on the resolution, said, “As you’ll notice, two key words are missing in the resolution before us. The first is Hamas. It is outrageous that this resolution fails to name the perpetrators of the October 7th terrorist attacks: Hamas. It is outrageous.”

Pointing out that the other important missing word is “hostage,” Thomas maintained, “These are omissions of evil. And they give cover to, and they empower, Hamas’ brutality.” The US, thus, supported an amendment proposed by Canada that asked for inserting a new paragraph in the resolution that would declare that the general assembly “unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages, demands the safety, wellbeing and humane treatment of the hostages in compliance with international law, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”

India voted for the amendment which, however, failed to pass as it did not get the required two-third majority and had only 88 votes in its favour. The disapproval of this amendment in the Assembly made India abstain from voting on the resolution proposed by Jordan. In this context, India’s EoV (Explanation of Vote) in the UN Assembly becomes an object of scrutiny. In the EoV, India does not belittle the severity of the situation in the Gaza strip; it rather unambiguously states, “Casualties in the ongoing conflict in Gaza are a telling, serious and continuing concern. Civilians, especially women and children are paying with their lives.

This humanitarian crisis needs to be addressed. We welcome the international community’s de-escalation efforts and delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.” Needless to say that India has also sent relief to Gaza. The EoV also makes it clear that India is not deviating from its long-standing stance on the Palestine-Israel conflict. It declares, “India has always supported a negotiated TwoState solution to the Israel-Palestine issue leading to the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders, side-by-side in peace with Israel.”

The EoV further explains, “For this, we urge the parties to deescalate, eschew violence and work towards creating conditions for an early resumption of direct peace negotiations.” This sounds perfectly sensible and defies the charges of the opposition that India is acting as a subordinate ally of US imperialism. The EoV also does not show any backtracking on India’s part so far as support to Palestine is concerned.

Though the EoV does not name Hamas, it seems that India adopted abstention in the Assembly because of the absence of two words ~ Hamas and hostage ~ in the resolution proposed by Jordan. India’s EoV states, “The terror attacks in Israel on 7th October were shocking and deserve condemnation. Our thoughts are also with those taken hostages. We call for their immediate and unconditional release.”

India’s stress on a strong condemnation of terrorism and the release of the hostages, perhaps, has made the Left consider India an ally of US imperialism as these have been exactly the demands of the US and their allies. But it has to be underlined that India’s stance on terrorism, as mentioned in the EoV, does not seem to get mediated by any narrow parochialism. It states, “Terrorism is a malignancy and knows no borders, nationality, or race. The world should not buy into any justification of terror acts.

Let us keep aside differences, unite and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism.” No sensible human, not even a diehard supporter of Palestine, can support or account for the mass killing of the 1400 Israelite civilians on 7th October 2023 by Hamas. Similarly, nothing can justify the barbaric killing of at least 7,700 Palestinians (half of whom are children) by Israel. Nothing can also justify the illegal occupation of the Palestinian land by Israel.

Joe Sacco, the author of the much acclaimed comic journalism, Palestine, seems to have the final say in this regard, “The Palestinian and Israeli people will continue to kill each other in low-level conflict or with shuttering violence ~ with suicide bombers or helicopter gunships and jet bombers ~ until this central fact ~ Israeli occupation ~ is addressed as an issue of international law and basic human rights.”

What could, then, India have done in the 10th Emergency Special Session of the UN Assembly? It could have expressed its views on the 7 October attack and terrorism unambiguously and voted for the UN resolution.

This is exactly what France has done. It has objected to the omission of the October 7 attack and the issue of the hostages taken by Hamas, but, at the same time, voted for the resolution saying “nothing can justify the suffering of civilians. All victims deserve our compassion, all lives are equal and there is no hierarchy between them.” This is not double dealing. This is humanitarian diplomacy.

This is, in fact, better than a stance that criticises terrorism, shows sympathy for the suffering civilians, but then does not vote for a resolution that calls for the “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations.” In fact, it should also be noted that though Hamas has not been mentioned, the UN resolution condemns all forms of terrorist activities. History will, perhaps, forget the nitty-gritty of the 10th Emergency Special Session of the UN Assembly. But it will remember that Gandhi’s country did not vote to protect the victims of a war.

(The writer is Professor, Department of English and Culture Studies, and Director, Centre for Australian Studies, The University of Burdwan)