India’s engagement with Israel has undergone a profound transformation from cautious diplomatic recognition to a visible and multidimensional strategic partnership encompassing defence cooperation, intelligence coordination, technological exchange, and political symbolism. Although India formally recognised Israel in 1950, Cold War strategic constraints, domestic political sensitivities, and solidarity with the Palestinian cause kept bilateral relations measured for decades. Successive Indian governments sought to preserve a delicate equilibrium between principled support for Palestinian self-determination and quiet engagement with Israel in defence and agricultural sectors, reflecting India’s non-aligned posture and pluralistic domestic politics.

The post–Cold War era gradually loosened these constraints. Economic liberalisation, defence modernisation, and evolving counterterrorism priorities encouraged New Delhi to explore deeper strategic engagement with Israel. However, the decisive shift occurred following the electoral victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014. Under Narendra Modi, India–Israel relations moved from strategic discretion to strategic declaration. Modi’s landmark 2017 visit to Israel symbolised a historic departure from diplomatic hesitation, normalising overt defence cooperation and expanding collaboration across cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, water management, border technologies, and intelligence sharing. The anticipated high-level interaction in February 2026 takes place amid escalating regional tensions and intensifying global power competition, granting the partnership renewed strategic and symbolic significance.

Beyond pragmatic cooperation, the evolving relationship increasingly reflects the convergence of assertive nationalist leaderships whose domestic legitimacy is partially anchored in narratives of civilisational revival and historical grievance. This intersection of strategy and identity politics introduces a symbolic dimension shaping perceptions across South Asia and West Asia.

Within this context, references to Akhand Bharat evoke a civilisational imagination rooted in historical continuity across the subcontinent, while discourse surrounding Greater Israel draws upon biblical memory and sacred geography. Although neither concept constitutes formal state doctrine and both remain contested domestically, their rhetorical prominence illustrates how sacred geography can influence identity formation and strategic perception.

The civilisational undertone of India–Israel relations has also been reinforced through political rhetoric articulated at the highest levels. Narendra Modi emphasised affinities between Indian and Jewish civilisations, while Benjamin Netanyahu invoked shared civilisational resilience and democratic identity. Such rhetoric strengthens diplomatic warmth but also contributes to perceptions of identity-based affinity beyond pragmatic defence cooperation.

Another factor shaping the intensity of India–Israel convergence is the domestic and diplomatic pressure confronting both Modi and Netanyahu. Netanyahu faces international criticism linked to Gaza, while Modi faces regional security pressures and shifting global alignment expectations. In this environment, deeper India–Israel cooperation can be viewed as strategic reassurance reinforcing narratives of strength and technological advancement.

The Gaza–Kashmir comparison emerges sharply within this interpretive framework. India’s acquisition of Israeli surveillance technologies and drones has contributed to a securitised environment in Kashmir, reinforcing symbolic linkages between Gaza and Kashmir.

Pakistan–Saudi security cooperation and recurring discourse around an Islamic NATO illustrate the perception of counter-alignments, though structural divisions limit the feasibility of a cohesive military bloc.

Pakistan’s nuclear capability remains central to South Asian deterrence stability. The India–Israel defence convergence introduces technological variables that may influence deterrence perceptions and strategic confidence in retaliatory survivability.

The implications extend to India’s relations with Iran and Turkey amid speculation of regional escalation involving Israel and Iran. Such developments could complicate India’s balancing diplomacy and reinforce perceptions of polarisation.

Global reactions from Russia, China, and the European Union reflect pragmatic balancing, yet these actors remain attentive to risks of identity-driven alignment narratives shaping geopolitical competition.

The notion of a loosely configured hexagonal alignment linking Israel and India with Mediterranean and African partners reflects the emergence of networked security partnerships. For Pakistan, such configurations raise concerns regarding maritime surveillance, technological asymmetry, and strategic encirclement perceptions.

Civilisations do not clash through inevitability but through political translation of myth into strategy. The durability of peace will depend on restraint, pluralism, and strategic sobriety rather than territorial memory.

Ambassador G. R. BaluchThe writer is a former ambassador and Director Global and Regional Studies Center at IOBM University Karachi.

© The Nation