The UNGA resolution, held on 12 June 2025, garnered widespread backing globally. India, along with countries such as Ecuador, Romania and Czechia, chose neither to support nor oppose, citing a commitment to dialogue and diplomacy rather than one-sided mandates. Congress, however, argues that this hesitancy has damaged India’s moral capital. “Standing silent as Israel annihilates a nation,” party leaders argued, is tantamount to complicity, warning of a reversal in India's historical foreign policy ethos.
India’s UN envoy, Ambassador P. Harish, stressed that the abstention was line with New Delhi’s record on similar UN resolutions—in particular those concerning International Court of Justice interventions in 2022 and 2024—and aligned with India's preference for conflict resolution through negotiation. He reaffirmed that India condemned civilian loss, advocated the release of hostages, and urged aid access, but insisted that lasting peace must be achieved through dialogue.
Critics from within the country, principally from the Congress party, maintain that the abstention deviates sharply from India’s historical position. Over decades, India has often voted in favour of UN resolutions calling for ceasefires or condemning violence in Gaza. As recently as December 2024, India supported a resolution for a ceasefire, making the current abstention a puzzling shift.
Domestically, Congress has intensified pressure on the government. Party president Mallikarjun Kharge highlighted the vote count—149 in favour, 19 abstentions—and questioned the credibility of India's foreign policy direction. He called for accountability, especially from the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister, alleging systemic missteps in diplomatic judgement.
Abstention at the UN is not legally binding, but holds symbolic significance. The geopolitical calculus behind India’s choice appears rooted in balancing relationships. On one hand, India seeks to maintain its path of strategic autonomy; on the other, India has deepening ties with Western powers including the United States, the UK, Australia, and Japan—all of which backed the resolution.
For decades, India has projected itself as a voice of the Global South, backing diplomatic solutions and humanitarian relief in conflict zones. Historically, it has supported Palestine's statehood aspirations while maintaining a working relationship with Israel. Its diplomatic posture has often leaned towards supporting ceasefires at the UN, aligning with resolutions in late 2023 and December 2024 on Gaza. This abstention signals a noteworthy recalibration, analysts suggest.
Experts note that India's abstention came precisely after a US veto at the UN Security Council cleared the way for a UNGA resolution. The General Assembly vote followed, aimed at signalling global opposition to violence in Gaza. India’s decision to stand aside, rather than offer even conditional support, has sparked debate about whether India is recalibrating its international posture or merely avoiding discord with powerful allies.
International response to India's abstention has so far been muted. Most global attention concentrated on the overwhelming support for the resolution—149 votes show widespread global consensus calling for humanitarian relief. India’s position, while noted, has not provoked direct rebuke from other UN missions. Instead, the abstention has become fodder for internal political contention.
Congress has insisted that failing to clearly condemn violence in Gaza damages India’s standing. The party emphasised India’s legacy as a principled actor, historically advocating UN resolutions that advanced peace and upheld international law. This legacy, they say, is now “reduced to rubble” by the abstention.
As the political discourse unfolds, attention now turns to potential policy shifts. Will internal criticism prompt a reassessment of India’s UN voting strategy? Or is this abstention a deliberate repositioning—reflecting cautious diplomacy amid complex global alliances?