Could Gaza become India’s strategic counter to Trump–Pakistan realignment?

When President Trump increased tariffs on Indian goods to 50 percent, citing India’s ongoing purchases of Russian oil and combining these penalty taxes with underlying economic threats – the damage extended beyond just commercial trade relations. The move punctured the longstanding narrative of Indo-US cooperation and left India navigating a precarious diplomatic path with a key partner. By adding a further 25 per cent to existing tariffs, Washington has fueled domestic political turmoil and portrayed India more as an adversary than a trusted ally. It is in this atmosphere that India’s stance on Gaza emerges as a quietly potent strategic fulcrum.

Amid escalating trade tensions, Prime Minister Modi publicly declared that India’s support for its farmers would not be compromised, fueling domestic solidarity against external economic coercion. At the same time, the United States’ embrace of Pakistan, marked by overtures such as oil reserves deals and evolving military cooperation, injected fresh disquiet into South Asia’s strategic calculus. Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, has already made his first high-profile visit to Washington this summer, with a second trip reportedly in the works. Against this backdrop, India’s recalibration toward reaffirming a moral and diplomatic commitment to a two-state solution in Gaza takes on enhanced geopolitical significance. It could allow India to counter economic pressure while spotlighting the transactionalism of its neighborhood rivalries.

India’s earlier abstention from United Nations ceasefire votes on Gaza, although explained as balancing ties, was diplomatically costly. It left the impression of drift from India’s historic position on Palestinian statehood. Now, with the strategic cards shifting, India has an opportunity to correct the course. By actively supporting the formation of a viable Palestinian state or taking a position distinct from Washington’s, New Delhi can undercut Pakistan’s grip on Islamic world narratives and regain moral credibility in the Global South.

Gaza: From diplomatic caution to calculated re-engagement

In the turbulent corridors of international diplomacy, the present moment of economic pressure has created an unexpected strategic opening. India’s recent abstentions at the United Nations General Assembly on ceasefire resolutions had raised eyebrows both within and beyond its borders. While these moves were interpreted by some as a soft alignment with Israel or a tactical bow to Western pressure, they now appear as part of a more complex strategic calculus that is beginning to crystallise as the geopolitical terrain shifts beneath India’s feet.

At the heart of this shift lies a sharp-edged dilemma: How to respond to a resurgent Trump administration that actively embraces Islamabad while singling out India with punitive trade measures and rhetorical barbs. The administration that accuses India of undermining global security through its continued energy ties with Russia maintains virtual silence on Israel’s prolonged and devastating military campaign in Gaza. This double standard, increasingly evident to observers worldwide, offers India not just a moral pivot but a strategic one.

As the Gaza conflict stretches into yet another painful chapter, India finds itself uniquely positioned to reaffirm its commitment to a just two-state solution rooted in its non-aligned movement legacy. Doing so can restore moral consistency, subtly underscore contradictions in US diplomacy, draw attention to Pakistan’s opportunism in the Islamic world, and reestablish India as a sovereign power that neither caves to economic coercion nor sacrifices its principles.

Unlike Washington, whose silence on Gaza’s humanitarian toll has grown deafening, India can present a position rooted in balance. This approach restores credibility in international forums and undercuts Pakistan’s claims of representing Islamic consensus. By taking a principled line now, distinct from the United States, India can isolate Pakistan diplomatically within the Muslim world and expose its inconsistencies. India’s relationship with Israel remains strong, built on decades of defence cooperation, technological exchange, and strategic trust. Yet it must also be cautious. Israel, in moments of strategic divergence, could become “the next Trump” for India. The killing of Colonel Waibhav Anil Kale in Gaza, under circumstances still contested, is a reminder that even close security partners can take decisions at odds with Delhi’s expectations. A calibrated position now ensures that strategic ties do not translate into unchecked dependency.

The Pakistan factor and a shifting global south

This strategic recalibration has been accelerated by the sudden warming of US–Pakistan relations. Following the Pahalgam attacks in April, what followed was more disquieting. Rather than tightening pressure on Islamabad, Washington extended a series of economic and political overtures to Pakistan. These included announcements of oil development partnerships, preferential trade discussions, and high-profile meetings where Trump described Pakistan as a “stabilising actor in South Asia.” The US even sought to claim diplomatic credit for the ceasefire. For New Delhi, this was not just a diplomatic affront but confirmation that transactional politics had once again taken precedence over shared democratic values.

Compounding this strategic dissonance was Pakistan’s widely ridiculed proposal to nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The idea surfaced just weeks before the Israel–Iran tensions reignited old sectarian and geopolitical divides across the region. At a time when Trump was doubling down on his pro-Israel positioning, including further arms support and diplomatic shielding for Israeli operations, Pakistan’s premature endorsement placed it squarely out of sync with much of the Muslim world. That dissonance offers India a valuable opening to reposition itself as the more consistent and credible voice, not through ideological maneuvering but through a principled return to its diplomatic foundations.

By projecting itself as a power that advocates outcomes rather than simply taking sides, India can quietly pose a pointed question to the international community: If moral outrage drives policy on Ukraine, why does it falter on Gaza? This is not to equate the conflicts, but to highlight a troubling inconsistency in the Western order—one that Trump’s rhetoric has widened further. The same administration that sanctions India for its Russia policy maintains silence over Israel’s operations in densely populated civilian areas. This gap in response is not just political; it is philosophical. India’s reassertion of its Palestine stance can make this contrast visible, not as protest but as principled persuasion.

Bridges in a fractured order

Beyond symbolism lies strategic calculation. India’s return to vocal support for Palestinian rights finds natural alignment with a growing chorus in the Global South. Brazil, under President Lula da Silva, has already voiced support for India’s resistance to Trump’s tariff regime while simultaneously reaffirming its support for Palestine. Lula’s emphasis on a multipolar world order, where no single country dictates diplomatic terms, aligns with India’s vision of balancing Western ties while asserting sovereignty on key international issues. Countries such as South Africa and Malaysia have offered similar support, welcoming India’s readiness to speak up on Gaza despite earlier restraint.

Iran presents a deeper and more consequential layer of engagement. Even after brief tensions during regional operations, Tehran continues to regard India as a necessary counterbalance to Saudi–Israeli normalisation efforts. In an era where sectarian politics often override pan-Islamic solidarity, India’s neutrality and historical steadiness allow it to engage constructively with Iran without jeopardising Gulf relations. Supporting a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and advocating a viable two-state framework becomes more than diplomatic positioning; it becomes a bridge connecting regional powers otherwise divided by sectarian lines.

Gaza is therefore not merely a foreign policy consideration for India. It represents a stage upon which several long-term strategic objectives can be realised: recalibrating relations with an increasingly transactional Trump administration, undercutting Pakistan’s opportunistic Islamic diplomacy, and asserting relevance in a global order shifting away from American centrality. The question remains whether India will seize this moment. Could Gaza, in all its tragedy and complexity, become the lever India needs to resist economic coercion from the West while exposing diplomatic opportunism in its own neighborhood? The strategic opportunity exists. What remains to be seen is whether New Delhi will transform this opportunity into diplomatic advantage, turning Trump’s tariff weapon into a pathway back to principled leadership on the global stage.

END OF ARTICLE