Q8(a) · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks · 2 min read

← Q7 Q8 →

How does India-Israel bilateral ties reflect the autonomy of India's foreign policy choices?

Topic: Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy. Syllabus: Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy: India’s position on the recent crisis in Afghanistan, Iraq and West Asia, growing relations with US and Israel; vision of a new world order. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2022 and Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy.

Revision summary

India kept Israel at arm’s length in the NAM decades, then opened fully in 1992. Defence and technology became the core of the bilateral. Autonomy means choosing that core without a US or Arab veto. Continued UN votes on Palestine show de-hyphenation, not capture. Gulf energy and Iran files run in parallel, which is multi-alignment.

Model answer

Introduction

India recognised Israel in 1950, kept a thin relationship through the Cold War, and opened full ambassadors in 1992. Deeper defence and technology ties since then show that New Delhi will choose partners against older bloc habits. Autonomy is the point of the story, not a romance of the relationship.

Body

From freeze to choice

  • Cold War India voted with Arab and NAM positions on Palestine and delayed full embassy exchange. That was also a choice, driven by energy, diaspora in the Gulf, and anti-colonial identity.
  • 1992 full diplomatic relations, after the Cold War and after Madrid-process optics, showed that the old package deal could be unbundled.

What the bilateral now contains

  • Defence, drones, intelligence, and agriculture technology became the hard core.
  • Water, start-ups, and homeland security added a civilian layer.
  • High visits and a public partnership replaced the earlier hush.

How this is autonomy

  • Autonomy, in Indian usage, is the right to decide each file. E. H. Carr would note that all States mix morality and interest; India stopped treating Israel as a forbidden moral absolute.
  • India still votes at the UN on Palestinian questions in ways that annoy Israel. That de-hyphenation is the proof of choice, not of capture.
  • Gulf energy, Iranian Chabahar, and Abraham Accords-era diplomacy show a West Asia policy of several channels at once, which is multi-alignment rather than a US or Arab veto over New Delhi.
  • Realist self-help after 1990s terrorism and after 1998 status-seeking made Israeli defence a tool. NAM rhetoric did not get a veto over that tool.

Limits of the showcase

  • A relationship can look autonomous and still be shaped by US technology rules and by Hindu-nationalist affinity politics at home.
  • Gaza wars periodically test how far public diplomacy can hold the two-track vote-and-weapons mix.

Judgment

  • India–Israel ties reflect autonomy because they were delayed when NAM logic demanded delay, deepened when security and tech demanded depth, and still sit beside a Palestine voting record. That is issue-based choice.

Flow diagram

flowchart TD
  C[Cold War thin ties] --> A[1992 full relations]
  A --> D[Defence tech]
  D --> AU[Autonomy as issue-based choice]
  U[UN Palestine votes] --> AU

Conclusion

India–Israel relations display foreign-policy autonomy as the power to open, thicken, and still qualify a partnership. Full ties after 1992 and defence cooperation did not abolish Palestine votes. The mix is the Indian claim to decide, not to join someone else’s camp.

Quick related

Students also ask

  • Discuss the consequences of illegal cross-border migration in India's north-eastern region

    Next question in the 2022 paper (Q8). View answer →

  • Did India abandon Palestine?

    Official policy still supports a two-state language at the UN. The change is the refusal to let that language block Israel ties.

  • Is this only a BJP-era story?

    Full relations began in 1992 under a Congress-led government. Later governments intensified the defence publicness.

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

  1. 2023 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

    Explain the major features of India's Foreign Policy in the 21st century.

    View answer →

  2. 2022 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

    Peaceful co-existence remains the cornerstone of India's foreign policy. Comment.

    View answer →

  3. 2022 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks

    Critically examine the major factors responsible for a turnaround in the trajectory of India's foreign policy in the post-cold war period

    View answer →

  4. 2022 · Q8(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks

    Discuss India's vision of a New World order in the 21st century

    View answer →

  5. 2021 · Q1(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

    Discuss the five proposals made by India in the recent COP-26 conference held in Glasgow.

    View answer →

  6. 2021 · Q5(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

    Explain the philosophical foundations of India's foreign policy.

    View answer →

  7. 2021 · Q5(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

    Explain India's position on the waiver of intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines in WTO.

    View answer →

  8. 2021 · Q5(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

    How does the recent takeover of Afghanistan by Taliban impact India's strategic interests?

    View answer →

More from this paper

Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

What are the main challenges faced by the developing countries in the era of globalisation?

Globalisation

Globalisation opens markets and tightens external rules. Wallerstein’s hierarchy and Prebisch’s trade concern still describe many late developers. Capital flight, TRIPS, and farm subsidies in the North cut policy space. Inequality, informality, and climate costs are domestic faces of the same pressure. Regional and South–South bargains are the usual reply, not autarky.

Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

Discuss the commonalities between the Marxist and Realist approach to the study of International Politics.

Approaches to the Study of International Relations

Both approaches deny that trade and law automatically pacify world politics. Carr’s critique of utopia feeds realist and Marxist readings. Morgenthau and Waltz stress State power; Lenin and Wallerstein stress capital and hierarchy. Institutions are treated as masks or tools, not as a world government in waiting. The commonality is conflictual materialism; the split is State versus class.

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.