BackA conflicting vote on a conflict
India has gained nothing by voting against Israel at the UNHRC
Premium
On Wednesday, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voted on a resolution that can lead to a probe into alleged violations of human rights in Gaza by Israel. The US voted against the resolution, 17 countries abstained and 29 voted in its favour. India voted for the resolution, a step that only signals its continuing foreign policy confusion in an important and troubled part of the world.
Votes at the UNHRC on contentious issues rarely serve any purpose except inflaming sentiments in the country being voted against. On the one hand, countries such as Israel, India and Sri Lanka who have been heckled at the UNHRC have never permitted investigations into alleged violations.
On the other hand, a negative vote only heightens a country’s sense of isolation without changing a conflict situation in a positive direction. The vote against Israel fits into this pattern as does India’s confused behaviour on the issue.
A week ago, the Bharatiya Janata Party led government blocked a discussion in Parliament on the ongoing conflict in Israel (Gaza is not an independent country). It was a wise decision as a discussion, debate or resolution would not have changed anything in Israel. That rational move was undone by the Indian vote at UNHRC.
Any vote should be preceded by a question: what is the difference in terms of gain or loss between a negative vote, an abstention or a positive vote? The government of India did not answer that question before it voted, especially in light of its different attitude on the issue in Parliament.
What did India gain from that vote? Nothing. If the aim was to help the Palestinian people, the vote is unlikely to be effective. Israel is sure to disallow any international investigation into the so-called war crimes. The vote will also not endear India to Arab countries or the Palestinians as India’s record of backing them on different matters has been equally inconsistent.
A much better option for India was to abstain. That would have signalled equidistance from Israel and the larger Arab world, which is what Indian policy is in practice. The deeper logic here is that of India’s limited ability to do something meaningful in this region. This is the same position that India took earlier this year when it abstained from voting for a probe into human rights violations in Sri Lanka. Even that decision came after multiple votes in favour of a probe which was the consequence of letting domestic political compulsions influence foreign policy.
If maintaining friendly ties with Israel required an abstention, does that mean a positive vote, as India did, will boost our relations with the Arab world? That is unlikely. India has extensive relations with countries in the Middle East. The region is home to a large Indian expatriate population that sends huge remittances. India also has extensive economic relations with Iran, a country traditionally rival to most Arab countries, except Oman. Can a single vote against Israel further the Palestinian cause and, in turn, help further our ties with Arab countries? It will require a stretch of logic to get an affirmative answer. An abstention would not have hurt these ties but equally they would not have negatively affected relations with Israel.
Should India have voted in favour of Israel because it is a fellow democracy? Probably not as even friendly democracies have divergent interests. But Israel is a special case. Not only is it a democracy surrounded by hostile countries, in the present case it is involved in bloody conflict with a non-state actor (Hamas) that is indulging in violence. India, which has been a target of non-state actors such as the Lashkar e Taiba from Pakistan, should be able to understand the predicament of another similarly placed democracy.
What then explains the Indian government’s latest decision to abandon neutrality in contentious issues and make a choice, that too the wrong one?
One can cook up any number of explanations but one looms over all others: Confusion.
India has, on many occasions, waffled on voting at the UN. In 1956, for example, India sided with Egypt, the Soviet Union and other countries in backing Egypt in the Suez crisis when Egypt was attacked. Yet a month later, in the aftermath of the vote on the Soviet invasion of Hungary, India did not condemn the aggressor country.
That sort of unthinking behaviour has continued since. Only that on certain occasions, the confusion becomes glaringly obvious and is also counterproductive. The vote against Israel at UNHRC is another example in that list of unending examples.
Should India have voted against Israel at UNHRC? Tell us at views@livemint.com
Follow Mint Opinion on Twitter at https://twitter.com/Mint_Opinion
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
