Can Gaza become a strategic rebellion between India and Trump-Pakistan?

When President Trump raised tariffs on Indian goods to 50%, India continued to buy Russian oil and combined those fines taxes with potential economic threats – the losses were not limited to commercial trade relations. The move pierces the long-standing narrative of India-U.S. cooperation and leaves India on a volatile diplomatic road with its key companions. Washington added another 25% tariff, exacerbating domestic political unrest and portraying India as more important than trusted allies. It is in this atmosphere that India’s position on Gaza is a quiet strategic fulcrum.

Amid escalating trade tensions, Prime Minister Modi publicly announced that India’s support for farmers would not be damaged, thus fueling domestic solidarity against external economic coercion. Meanwhile, the U.S. embrace of Pakistan, characterized by a proposal for oil reserve trading and evolving military cooperation, has injected fresh uneasiness into South Asia’s strategic calculations. Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munier has made his first high-profile visit to Washington this summer, with a second trip reportedly. Against this backdrop, India’s recalibration of moral and diplomatic commitments to Gaza’s two-state solution has enhanced geopolitical significance. It could enable India to cope with economic pressures while displacing its neighbourhood competition transactionalism.

India’s early abstentions stopped the vote on Gaza at the United Nations, although interpreted as a balanced relationship, were diplomatically expensive. It left an impression of drifting from India’s historical status in the Palestinian national status. Now, with the transfer of the strategy card, India has the opportunity to correct the course. By actively supporting the formation of a viable Palestinian state or taking a different position than Washington, New Delhi could undermine Pakistan’s control over the Islamic world narrative and restore moral credibility to the global South.

Gaza: From diplomatic caution to re-engagement in calculations

In the corridor of turbulent international diplomacy, the current economic pressure instantly creates unexpected strategic opening. India’s recent abstention from the UN General Assembly ceasefire resolution has attracted attention inside and outside its borders. Although these moves are interpreted by some as soft alignment with Israel or tactical bows against the West, they now seem to be part of a more complex strategic calculus, which began to crystallize as geopolitical terrain shifts at the feet of India.

At the heart of this shift is a sharp dilemma: how to deal with a revived Trump administration that actively embraces Islamabad while simultaneously placing punitive trade measures and rhetoric. The accusation of India of undermining global security through its ongoing energy relations with Russia has maintained virtual silence for Israel’s extended and devastating military movement in Gaza. This double standard is becoming increasingly obvious to global observers, providing not only a moral hub for India, but also a strategic hub.

As the Gaza conflict stretches to another painful chapter, India finds itself uniquely positioning its commitment to a two-state solution rooted only in its legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement. Doing so restores moral consistency, cleverly emphasizes contradictions in US diplomacy, draws attention to Pakistan’s opportunism in the Islamic world, and reestablishes India as a sovereign power, neither economic coercion nor sacrifices its principles.

With Washington (Washington) silence on Gaza’s humanitarian losses becoming deafening, India could make a stance rooted in balance. This approach restored credibility in international forums and weakened Pakistan’s claim to represent the Islamic consensus. By now adopting a different principled line from the United States, India can isolate Pakistan in diplomatic terms within and outside the Muslim world and reveal its contradictions. India’s relationship with Israel remains strong, building on decades of defense cooperation, technical exchanges and strategic trust. But it must also be cautious. At a time of strategic differences, Israel may become India’s “next Trump”. With competition still in place, the killing of Colonel Waibhav Anil Kale in Gaza reminds you that even close security partners can be the opposite of what Delhi expects. The calibration position now ensures that strategic relationships do not translate into unchecked dependencies.

Pakistan’s factors and changes in the global south

Sudden warming of U.S.-Pakistan relations has accelerated this strategic recalibration. Things that followed were even more disturbing after the Pahalgam attack in April. Instead of nervous pressure from Islamabad, Washington has expanded a series of economic and political proposals to Pakistan. These included announcements on oil development partnerships, preferential trade discussions and high-profile conferences, where Trump described Pakistan as “a stable actor in South Asia.” The United States even tried to claim diplomatic honor for the ceasefire. For New Delhi, this is not only a diplomatic insult, but also confirms that trading politics once again takes precedence over common democratic values.

What exacerbates this strategic dissonance is Pakistan’s widespread mockery of Donald Trump’s proposal to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The idea surfaced just weeks before Israel-Iran tensions divided throughout the region by the old sectarian and geopolitical divisions. As Trump doubled his pro-Israel positioning, including further weapon support and diplomatic shielding of Israeli operations, Pakistan’s premature endorsement puts it completely out of sync with many of the Muslim worlds. This discord provides India with a valuable openness to repositioning as a more consistent and credible voice, rather than through ideological manipulation but through a principled return to the diplomatic basis.

By projecting itself as a force to promote achievements rather than simply support, India can quietly raise a sharp question to the international community: Why would it be in Gaza if moral anger drives policy towards Ukraine? This is not to equate with conflict, but to emphasize the disturbing contradictions in the Western order, which is a further expansion of Trump’s remarks. The same government that sanctions India’s policy toward Russia remained silent on Israel’s actions in densely populated civilian areas. The gap in this response is not only political. This is philosophical. The re-expression of India’s position on Palestinian could make this contrast visible, not protest, but principle persuasiveness.

Bridges of bridges

Beyond symbolism lies in strategic calculations. The return of India’s voice support for Palestinian rights has brought nature to the choirs in the global South. Brazil, led by Brazilian President Lula Da Silva, has expressed its boycott of India’s tariff regime, while reaffirming its support for Palestine. Lula emphasized the multipolar world order, and no country decided on diplomatic terms, which was with India’s vision of balancing between Western ties while advocating sovereignty on key international issues. Similar support has been provided by countries such as South Africa and Malaysia, and despite earlier restrictions, it is willing to speak to Gaza.

Iran has proposed a deeper and more important level of participation. Even after a brief tension in regional operations, Tehran sees India as a necessary balance for Saudi-Israel normalization efforts. In this era, sectarian politics often overshadowed pan-Islamic solidarity, India’s neutrality and historical stability allowed it to interact constructively with Iran without jeopardizing Gulf relations. Supporting Gaza’s humanitarian ceasefire and advocating a viable two-state framework is more than just a diplomatic positioning. It becomes a bridge connecting regional powers, otherwise divided by the sectarian line.

Therefore, Gaza is not only an Indian foreign policy consideration. It represents a phase where several long-term strategic goals can be achieved: recalibrating relations with the increasingly traded Trump administration, undermining Pakistan’s opportunistic Islamic diplomacy, and advocating relevance in a shift from the centrality of the United States in the global order. The question remains whether India will seize this moment. Can Gaza be a lever for India in all its tragedy and complexity, resisting Western economic coercion while exposing diplomatic opportunism in its own community? There are strategic opportunities. It remains to be seen whether New Delhi will turn this opportunity into a diplomatic advantage, turning Trump’s tariff weapons into a path to principled leadership back on the global stage.

End of the article