Why did India condemn Israel’s Doha strike? | Explained

 The story so far:

India’s condemnation of Israel’s bombing in Doha last week as a “violation of sovereignty” is a shift from its more muted positions on previous Israeli operations in other countries, leading some to wonder if there’s a larger change in New Delhi’s stand on the crisis in West Asia. However, experts said that while the strong wording of the statement denotes growing distress over mounting civilian casualties in the war in Gaza, India’s intervention has more to do with its close ties with Qatar and the Gulf region than with an assertion of principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. This has become particularly important, given New Delhi’s concerns over the Saudi-Pakistan mutual defence agreement signed in Riyadh on Wednesday.

Why did India criticise the Doha strike?

On September 16, India referred to the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) bombing on September 9 of a home in Doha where leaders of Hamas gathered to discuss the United States’ latest ceasefire proposal, as actions that “threaten peace, stability and security” in the region and worldwide. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended the strike, which killed five, albeit none of the senior Hamas leadership, saying that it was “justified” as Qatar “harbours and funds” Hamas operatives.

“India is deeply concerned about the recent attacks in Doha and their impact on the security situation in the region. We unequivocally condemn the violation of the sovereignty of Qatar,” said India’s Ambassador to the UN Mission in Geneva Arindam Bagchi, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, also invoking the UN charter and international law.

“Any escalation must be avoided, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States must be upheld,” Mr. Bagchi added, in a statement that built on an earlier statement by the Ministry of External Affairs, and another statement issued after Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke to Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamin Bin Hamad Al Thani on September 10, expressing “solidarity with the Qatari people”.

How does this differ from India’s past reactions?

The statements are in stark contrast to New Delhi’s reactions to Israel’s bombings of several other countries in the region, including Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, Syria, and Iran.

When Israel bombed the Iranian Embassy in Damascus last April, the MEA had expressed some “concern”, as it had when Israeli forces attacked a UN Peacekeeping post in southern Lebanon, but remained largely silent over other Israeli attacks on other countries. When Israeli intelligence detonated hundreds of pager bombs against Hezbollah in Beirut in September 2024, Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi called the operation a “masterstroke”. On Iran — a country with close ties with India and where investments such as the Chabahar port are at stake — the government’s reactions have been more puzzling. In June, India issued a statement expressing “concern” and called for dialogue after Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Iran responded to. However, New Delhi disassociated from a statement issued by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) days later, which condemned the strikes on Iran. In a subsequent flip-flop, India signed on to the SCO joint declaration on September 1 that “condemned” Israel and the U.S. for the June strikes.

Why is Qatar treated differently?

“India’s ties with the other countries mentioned are not the same as ties with Qatar, with its large Indian diaspora and personal relations at the highest levels between PM Modi and the Qatari Emir,” explained former Ambassador to the UAE and Egypt, Navdeep Suri. “Eventually, in an age of ‘transactionalism’, this is not as much about values and principles as about the bilateral relationship with each of these countries, including Israel,” he told The Hindu.

The MEA declined to respond to a question from The Hindu on why the Modi government has taken conflicting positions on the issue. Experts said a number of reasons explained the varied statements, from geopolitical to regional and bilateral. According to former Ambassador and author of West Asia at War, Talmiz Ahmad, India’s response to the attack on Qatar had “no larger strategic purpose” but focused on Qatar being a “crucial supplier of gas”.

He also pointed out that Israel’s attack on Qatar had put Gulf countries that house U.S. military bases and count on the U.S. to guarantee security “on notice”, indicating a “fundamental geopolitical shift in the region”, which India may need to take note of.

“The message Israel has given is that every Arab country, every Gulf country, is within their target zone and put them all on notice. Israel has now ended the process of normalisation and made it clear that ties with other West Asian countries are not a priority over its operations. Thirdly, Israel has shown that the U.S. is no longer a guarantor of security for these GCC countries,” Mr. Ahmad said, speaking at a seminar organised by the India-America Friendship Association on Tuesday.

The alarm among Gulf countries was visible at an emergency joint session of the Arab League and the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) conference in Doha this week, which condemned Israel’s actions, even as the Gulf Cooperation Council committed to building a “joint defence mechanism” to deal with future threats.

What does this mean for India’s broader West Asia policy?

In addition, experts said India’s silence on Gaza — where more than 65,000 have been killed, including at least 20,000 children, in Israel’s incessant bombardment of Gaza, including the latest offensive against Gaza City — is straining its ties with the Arab world. In a rare response to media queries on August 27, the MEA called the killing of journalists and civilians by the IDF “shocking and deeply regrettable”. India also voted in favour of a UNGA resolution endorsing the two-state solution for Palestine on September 12, indicating that, despite the steadfast relationship with Israel, the Modi government’s shifts may indicate that it needs to factor in the rest of the region as well.