Sonia Gandhi’s Palestine Rhetoric — Vote Bank Politics Masquerading As 'Morality'

Sonia Gandhi’s Palestine Rhetoric — Vote Bank Politics Masquerading As 'Morality'

Sonia Gandhi.India’s foreign policy is no longer about performative positioning, but about preserving India's strategic depth and sovereign agency.Sonia Gandhi’s selective humanitarianism is aimed at specific domestic electoral constituencies.

In recent weeks, the Middle East has again taken centre stage in India’s political discourse—this time not because of our proximity to the region, but due to a growing domestic divergence in how India’s foreign policy is being interpreted, contested, and politicised. 

At the heart of the current debate lies a sharp contrast between the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)’s strategic restraint and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s moralistic rebuke.

As a political strategist, I find it imperative to examine both the diplomatic reality and the political motivation behind this divide—and to question why humanitarian crises like Gaza are repeatedly weaponised for vote-bank appeasement rather than addressed through a consistent national doctrine.

India’s Realist Doctrine

Let’s begin with the facts.

India’s official position on international conflicts, especially involving Israel, Iran, and Palestine, has consistently been balanced, anti-terror, and pro-peace.

Following Israel’s 13 June strikes on Iranian territory, the Indian government responded swiftly and soberly. A 24×7 MEA control room was activated. Indian nationals were evacuated from high-risk zones under Operation Sindhu. Instead of taking sides, India urged “mutual restraint” and de-escalation. It even distanced itself from an anti-Israel SCO resolution, choosing a neutral position that aligns with its independent foreign policy legacy.

In sharp contrast, Sonia Gandhi accused the government of "silence," calling the strikes “unilateral militarism” and blaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi of abandoning India’s moral voice in times of such crises.

But this isn’t about morals. It’s about maintaining simultaneous diplomatic partnerships with both Iran and Israel, which is critical for India’s energy, trade, and strategic interests. India has enjoyed close ties with both countries, and while the value these partnerships bring to India may vary at different times, both have been critical for advancing India’s national interest.

India condemned the Hamas terror attack of October 7 and reaffirmed Israel’s right to self-defence. At the same time, it advocated humanitarian access to Gaza and aid for civilians. Notably, India has provided over 70 tonnes of medical and food supplies to Palestine in the last year alone.

Again, the MEA abstained on controversial UN ceasefire resolutions. Not because it was indifferent, but because those texts failed to name Hamas or mention terrorism, creating a diplomatic imbalance. Yet Sonia Gandhi labelled this abstention as a “departure from our moral and diplomatic traditions.”

She spoke of suffering in Gaza but conspicuously omitted any mention of Hamas terror that has killed thousands of innocent Israeli civilians over the years, or the rockets that rain over Israeli towns from Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis. This selective outrage, in my view, is less about Palestine and more about signaling to a domestic vote-bank.

Strategic Equilibrium, Not Selective Condemnation

India’s policy has never been about choosing sides. It has always sought a careful equilibrium. India was among the first nations to recognise the State of Palestine and has contributed over $160 million in developmental aid to Palestinian institutions and infrastructure.

At the same time, Israel has emerged as one of India’s top defence technology partners, offering critical support in counter-terrorism, drone systems, and precision agriculture—sectors that are vital for India’s national security and technological advancement.

Meanwhile, despite global sanctions and Western pressure, Iran remains indispensable to India’s long-term energy security and connectivity strategy, especially through the Chabahar port, which serves as a gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The MEA is thus tasked with walking a diplomatic tightrope where taking sides could compromise strategic interests on multiple fronts.

Moralising foreign policy decisions, as Sonia Gandhi suggests, may win applause in certain activist or academic circles, but it risks doing real damage to India’s credibility. By projecting India as a consistent and pragmatic actor, not a reactive or ideologically driven one, the MEA has preserved India’s standing as a sovereign and reliable voice on the world stage.

The Real Issue

Now, let’s get to the elephant in the room: why does the Opposition show outrage only when the aggressor is Israel, but remain conveniently quiet when terror groups like Hamas target civilians?

The answer lies in a political playbook that has been used before. Sonia Gandhi’s statement is a textbook case of selective humanitarianism. Her article doesn’t mention Hamas even once. Not by accident, but by design. This framing feeds into a domestic ideological narrative that casts Israel as the perennial villain while shielding radical groups from any scrutiny.

By avoiding any mention of jihadist outfits and their atrocities, this brand of political commentary attempts to maintain a carefully calibrated message tailored for specific electoral constituencies. It sacrifices India’s principled anti-terror posture for the sake of short-term messaging and vote-bank arithmetic. Such selective outrage dilutes India’s moral voice, rather than strengthening it.

Why India’s Approach Is Correct

India’s approach stands on a foundation of realism, not rhetoric. We condemned Hamas because terrorism has no justification. We sent humanitarian aid to Palestinians because human suffering must not be ignored. We didn’t take sides, because both Israel and Iran are critical to India’s long-term strategic interests.

We abstained at the UN because the resolutions presented were lopsided, politically motivated, and failed to acknowledge the full complexity of the crisis. And we didn’t moralise, because international diplomacy isn’t about applause. It’s about outcomes.

Under the Modi government, India’s foreign policy has matured beyond the Nehruvian sentimentalism of the past. It is no longer about performative positioning, but about preserving India's strategic depth, security architecture, and sovereign agency in a volatile world.

Himanshu Jain is a political commentator.

Join our WhatsApp channel - no spam, only sharp analysis

Comments ↓

About Swarajya

Shaping the modern Indian's worldview, speaking on behalf of those invested in the cultural and economic prosperity of India. Published since 1956.