The Hindu: Published on 19 September 2025.
Why in News?
India’s unusually strong wording — calling the Israeli strike in Doha a “violation of the sovereignty of Qatar” and “unequivocally condemn[ing]” it at the UN Human Rights Council — is notable because New Delhi has mostly used muted language for other Israeli strikes in the region. That departure from New Delhi’s prior tone is why the statement made headlines and prompted debate.
Background (what happened):
On 9 September, an Israeli strike in Doha targeted a meeting of Hamas figures; reports say several lower-rank members were killed and security personnel and civilians injured. Qatar, an important Gulf state, called it a violation of its sovereignty and convened Arab/Islamic meetings; India reacted with a strongly worded condemnation and Prime Minister Modi spoke with the Qatari Amir.
Key issues at stake:
- Sovereignty and precedent: An attack on another country’s territory (especially a Gulf state hosting U.S. bases and deep diplomatic ties) raises alarms about where the conflict could spread.
- Gulf security architecture: Gulf states are worried their territories may become targets; the strike accelerated discussion of joint defence mechanisms across the GCC and prompted emergency regional meetings.
- Big-power credibility: The episode has revived questions about whether the U.S. remains an unambiguous security guarantor for Gulf states. Some analysts say Gulf capitals are rethinking reliance on Washington.
How India’s reaction differs from past responses:
Historically, India used either muted language or expressed “concern” about Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc. (and at times praised specific Israeli actions). By contrast, the Doha comment explicitly invoked violation of sovereignty and used “unequivocal” condemnation at the UN — a clearer, stronger rebuke than India has typically issued. That contrast is the political story.
Why Qatar is being treated differently:
Several practical reasons explain the different tone:
Large Indian diaspora and people-to-people links: Qatar hosts a sizable Indian community; protecting their security is a direct national interest.
High-level personal ties: Modi–Amir relations and frequent high-level engagement create bilateral political pressure to respond.
Energy and strategic importance: Qatar is a major supplier of LNG and an important partner for India’s energy security — a dimension that elevates the bilateral sensitivity.
Regional signalling: The strike on Doha put Gulf capitals “on notice” that they are within Israel’s operational reach; that creates immediate regional consequences that India cannot ignore.
In short: transactional, bilateral stakes (people, energy, political ties) — not only abstract principle — drove India’s firmer response.
Role of India–Qatar ties (practical mechanics):
India’s response appears shaped by a combination of diplomatic closeness (phone call from PM Modi to the Amir), energetic ties (gas supplies) and the presence of a large expatriate community. Those tangible stakes create domestic and diplomatic incentives for a stronger public stand than India typically takes on other theatres where stakes for India are lower or more complex.
Why India stayed largely silent on Gaza (and why it now speaks up):
India’s historically cautious posture on Gaza stems from a few, intertwined reasons:
Strategic balancing: India has cultivated a close security-technology relationship with Israel while also needing good ties with Gulf and Arab states for energy, remittances and diaspora politics. That pushes New Delhi toward calibrated, oft-neutral language.
Domestic/manageable diplomacy: Strong public positions risk upsetting either Israel (security cooperation) or Gulf partners (energy, labour). So New Delhi prefers diplomatic balance and quiet diplomacy.
Diplomatic calculus: Until the Qatar strike, many Israeli operations took place in Gaza or non-Gulf states — areas where New Delhi judged calibrated responses would better protect India’s broad interests.
The Doha strike was different: it hit a Gulf capital and, crucially, a close partner. That raised immediate bilateral and regional risks (and domestic political visibility through the diaspora), prompting stronger language.
What this means for India’s West Asia policy (implications):
Practical, transactional diplomacy will continue, but with sharper hedging. India will likely keep balancing Israel ties with stronger engagement in the Gulf — and will use public statements selectively where bilateral stakes are high.
Greater sensitivity to Gulf security moves. The Saudi-Pakistan defence pact and Gulf talk of joint defence show the region is re-ordering; India will have to factor those changes into its strategy. Expect New Delhi to quietly deepen consultations with Gulf partners and push for de-escalation publicly when Gulf state sovereignty is threatened.
Limited normative shift — more tactical signalling. This Doha response is likely tactical (protecting immediate national interests) rather than an across-the-board new principle. India’s vote for the two-state UNGA text and occasional condemnations of civilian deaths show it can and will voice positions on norms — but selectively.
Diplomatic balancing will grow more complex. If the conflict further spreads to GCC capitals or prompts formal defence pacts, India may face harder choices between strategic ties (Israel, U.S.) and growing security-economic needs in the Gulf.
Short conclusion:
India’s Doha statement is notable because it is clearer and firmer than its usual language — but the motive appears practical/bilateral (protecting ties with Qatar, safeguarding diaspora and energy interests, and reacting to a new regional security dynamic) rather than a wholesale, principle-based reset on the Israel–Palestine question. The strike exposed Gulf vulnerability and accelerated regional realignments (e.g., the Saudi-Pakistan pact), forcing New Delhi to signal concern publicly — without abandoning its longer-term balancing act between Israel and Gulf partners.
