From Gandhi and Nehru to Narendra Modi.. What has changed? India, Palestine, or the world?

India's stance during the era of Gandhi, Nehru, and Indira Gandhi towards Palestine was not merely a fleeting diplomatic expression, but an extension of a historical vision shaped in the context of liberation from colonialism led by Mahatma Gandhi. Within the framework of Nehru's leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement, the support for the struggles of colonized peoples was seen as part of its moral and political identity. At that time, Palestine was not just a point on the agenda of interests, but a mirror reflecting India's identity as a post-colonial state committed to justice as a condition for international legitimacy.

However, under Narendra Modi's leadership, India has reshaped its priorities. The rise of Hindu nationalism, aspirations for a major power role in the international system, and the intensification of security, technological, and military partnerships with Israel—where military imports from Israel reached twenty billion and a half dollars between 2020 and 2024—are all elements that have redefined the relationship with Palestine from a position of principled solidarity to one of strategic calculations.

Here the question becomes urgent: Has India changed? Has Palestine changed? Or has today’s world become different from yesterday’s?

First: A transformation in the structure of the Indian state

India is no longer the state that sees support for liberation movements as a confirmation of its moral legitimacy. Amid internal transformations and the rise of a clearly religious nationalist discourse, foreign policy priorities have become more pragmatic, more linked to security, technology, and alliances that enhance its position against China and Pakistan, and grant it influence in arms and innovation markets.

In this context, the relationship with Israel is viewed as a strategic partnership, rather than a stance on the plight of a people under occupation. Here, the value dimension retreats before the logic of power, especially during the era of nationalist populism led by Modi today.

Second: Erosion of Palestine's symbolic status

However, fairness necessitates acknowledging that Palestine, especially after the illusion of Oslo, is no longer perceived in global consciousness as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, the Palestinian national movement, despite all its complexities, had a relatively clear narrative: a people struggling for national liberation and self-determination. There was a unifying political banner, and a moral image difficult to sidestep.

Today, the Palestinian body suffers from deep political division, a decline in the effectiveness of its representative institutions, and confusion in defining the national project. The justice of the cause has not diminished, but the ability to protect it from distortion and reduction has weakened. The narrative that was once pure and clear has become susceptible to distortion, either due to division or the inability of the political system to renew itself, or due to the blending of moral discourse with regional polarization. It seems that this has seriously threatened the opportunity to capitalize on global shifts surrounding the falsehood of the Zionist narrative due to the genocide, despite this opportunity still being viable for building a strategy based on a realistic vision and discourse capable of leveraging what has transpired due to this shift. When the self weakens, it becomes easier for states to reposition themselves without incurring a significant moral cost.

Third: A world after morality and justice

Moreover, the world itself has changed. After the Cold War, the centrality of liberation movements in international conscience diminished. Nationalist populism rose, and considerations of security, technology, and economy overshadowed concepts of justice and liberation. Politics began to be managed by the logic of risk management rather than the logic of value creation. In this climate, the alliance between a hardline nationalist Indian government and an extreme right-wing Israeli government does not seem an anomalous event but part of a broader network of alliances among powers that view security resolution as a model for managing conflicts, rather than equitable solutions.

So, what has changed?

Yes, India has changed. And the world has undoubtedly changed.

But the deeper Palestinian challenge lies in the question of self; do we today have a unifying national project that reinstates Palestine in its position as an issue of universal justice, rather than a regional security file?

The problem does not lie in that a state chose a different alliance, but in that the moral cost of this choice has become low. This cost only rises when the Palestinian narrative is clear, inclusive, and cohesive, supported by live and capable representative institutions.

Indira Gandhi stood with Palestine because Palestine was part of a global liberatory conscience.

Today, when Narendra Modi establishes an alliance that transcends the region with a government accused of committing genocides against the Palestinian people, and in the face of what he calls the Sunni alliance—Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which remains a theoretical situation rather than just Iran and what is called the Shiite axis—this question should not be limited to critiquing the outside, including the Arab and Islamic situations that marginalize themselves daily, but should extend to a review of the internal situation. The just cause does not fall, but it may be marginalized if its people fail to protect its status, organize its energy, and renew its project.

And the question that should trouble us is not: Why did India change? But: Do we have the capacity to make any deviation from justice politically and morally costly in the world’s balance?