Listen to this article:

Narendra Modi’s public embrace of Benjamin Netanyahu in January 2025 symbolised the decisive shift of Indian foreign policy from strategic autonomy to overt alignment. The meeting was staged, publicised, and celebrated at the very moment when Netanyahu faced arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Timing in diplomacy is never accidental. When over 70,000 Palestinians including over 16,000 children had been killed, entire neighbourhoods flattened, and international legal proceedings were underway, India chose not restraint but affirmation.

This was not routine statecraft. It was theatre – two leaders under international scrutiny validating each other. For Netanyahu, increasingly isolated and confronting both legal jeopardy and domestic unrest, the visit provided invaluable optics: proof that a major democracy stood visibly by his side. For Modi, the embrace reinforced a domestic narrative of muscular leadership, ideological solidarity with Israel, and indifference to Western criticism or international institutions. The spectacle served both men’s political needs.

The International Criminal Court’s warrants followed months of documented devastation in Gaza – widespread civilian casualties, destruction of hospitals and refugee camps, and allegations of collective punishment. South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice further intensified legal scrutiny. Across Europe, Latin America, and Africa, governments re-calibrated their diplomatic positions. Even within the United States, Israel’s principal ally, opposition to continued support grew louder. Israel faced mounting isolation.

Into this climate stepped India – not quietly maintaining security cooperation, but offering conspicuous legitimacy. Alternatives existed: low-profile engagement, calibrated statements of concern, technical consultations without public endorsement. Instead, the Modi government opted for maximum visibility – joint appearances, declarations of enduring partnership, carefully choreographed imagery. 

Such choices carry meaning. In global politics, spectacle signals endorsement. The images travelled far beyond domestic audiences. They were seen in Palestine, across the Arab world, throughout Africa and Asia where India once cultivated moral authority as a champion of anti-colonial struggles, and in multilateral forums where India asserts commitment to international law. The message perceived was stark: India under Modi privileges strategic alignment and political optics over humanitarian principle and legal accountability.

The strategic costs may not be immediate, but they are cumulative. India’s energy security, diaspora interests, and trade relationships are deeply embedded in the broader Muslim world. Its historic diplomatic capital rested on anti-colonial solidarity and principled non-alignment. Public endorsement at a moment of global legal censure erodes that legacy.

Spectacle can generate applause at home. But when foreign policy becomes performance, national interest risks becoming secondary to image management. An embrace lasts seconds; its implications may endure far years.

The hidden costs of security cooperation

The government may defend the blunder on grounds of strategic necessity: advanced weapons systems, missile defence components, drones, intelligence-sharing, and counterterrorism expertise. Israel has indeed become one of India’s largest arms suppliers after Russia, and the military cooperation addresses real security challenges.

Much of the technology India procures from Israel has been refined in prolonged conflict and occupation contexts. Drones, surveillance systems, and counterinsurgency techniques were operationally tested in Gaza and the West Bank. When India purchases such systems, it risks material and symbolic association with actions widely alleged to constitute genocide.

The Pegasus spyware controversy illustrates the risk. The surveillance software developed by Israel’s NSO Group – allegedly used in India against social activists, journalists, and opposition leaders – emerged from Israel’s expansive monitoring apparatus in occupied territories. Its deployment domestically suggests the normalisation of intrusive surveillance as a tool of political management.

Also read: After Backing UAE, Modi Calls Netanyahu, Urges Early End to Hostilities

Security cooperation also intersects with Kashmir. Israeli equipment, training, and counterinsurgency experience have informed Indian security........

© The Wire