Indias moral voice at risk as Modi visited Israel twice

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second official visit to Israel on February 25-26, 2026, is being hailed by his Godi Media (lapdog television networks, newspapers) and party loyalists as a diplomatic triumph. The hype echoes the celebratory tone of his 2017 trip, when he became the first Indian prime minister to visit the Jewish state.

Yet beneath the spectacle of optics and symbolism lies a more troubling reality. This visit is less a story of diplomatic success than a marker of a deeper crisis in India’s foreign policy — and of its moral standing in the world.

For decades, India prided itself on strategic autonomy: the ability to engage competing global powers while retaining independent judgment. From the era of non-alignment through its later recalibrations, New Delhi sought to balance relations with Washington, Moscow, Tehran and Tel Aviv alike. Today, that balance appears to be eroding day by day.

Recent controversy has sharpened these concerns. The so-called Epstein Files released by the US Department of Justice in January 2026 included an email dated July 6, 2017, sent by the late pedophile and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein emailed an unidentified individual he referred to as “Jabor Y”: “The Indian Prime minister modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED. !”

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed the message as “vile nonsense.” That may well be so; Epstein’s claims are hardly a reliable record of diplomacy.

Yet the mere existence of such a communication, referencing a sitting Indian prime minister’s visit, raises questions that cannot simply be waved away.

Opposition voices in India have seized on this episode. Pawan Khera, the chief of Communication of the Indian National Congress Party, the main opposition party in the Parliament, stated that any perceived association between India’s prime minister and a discredited criminal figure demands transparent clarification.

Democracies function on accountability, and when a matter touches both national dignity and foreign policy, it deserves sober scrutiny rather than dismissal.

Compounding the unease are remarks attributed to former US president Donald Trump, who has publicly boasted of his personal influence over Modi. Trump’s joking remark that he did not want to “destroy Modi’s political career” may be dismissed as bluster. Yet the underlying implication — that India’s prime minister is beholden to the good will of a foreign leader — is corrosive. Even the perception of such dependency weakens India’s claim to strategic autonomy. India increasingly looks the US’s vassal state.

The deepening embrace of Israel must also be assessed in a broader regional context. India’s ties with Israel, particularly in defense, agriculture and technology, are substantial. But they now appear increasingly unbalanced. New Delhi’s historic relationships with Arab states and with Iran — a country that has, at times, supported India’s position on Kashmir — risk being overshadowed by a one-sided alignment. At a moment when tensions between Israel, the United States and Iran threaten to escalate into open conflict, Modi’s highly publicized visit to Israel sends a stark signal of India’s geopolitical tilt.

There is also the question of values. India long presented itself as a moral voice of the Global South, advocating decolonization, sovereignty, justice and human rights. Yet Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, widely criticized by international human rights organizations for its heavy civilian toll, has forced difficult questions upon India’s leadership. By offering public diplomatic warmth to the Israeli government at this juncture, New Delhi risks being seen as endorsing policies that have resulted in large-scale civilian suffering in Gaza.

Images of handshakes and joint statements may project partnership, but they also carry symbolic meaning. For Israel, the visible support of the world’s most populous democracy is a powerful narrative tool. It allows Israeli leaders to suggest that their actions enjoy tacit approval from 1.4 billion Indians. That perception may be inaccurate, but it nonetheless shapes international opinion.

Some analysts have suggested a more personal dimension to Modi’s diplomacy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a parliamentary contest later this year, and visible support from a major global partner could bolster his domestic standing. Modi’s history of high-profile diaspora events — such as the “Howdy Modi” rally in Texas and “Namaste Trump” in Gujarat — has blurred the line between statecraft and political spectacle. When foreign engagements align with the electoral interests of foreign leaders, it raises uncomfortable questions about the motivations behind national policy.

The controversy surrounding the Epstein email and Trump’s remarks may or may not reveal substantive influence. But perception matters in international relations. And the perception that India’s foreign policy might be shaped by external pressure or personal political calculations undermines its credibility.

Equally troubling is the domestic political response. Critics note that Modi has yet to directly address Parliament on these concerns. In a parliamentary democracy, the prime minister’s accountability to elected representatives is fundamental. Avoidance or silence — whether due to political calculation or international pressure — risks deepening the impression of opacity.

India stands at a pivotal moment in its global trajectory. Its economic growth, demographic weight, and technological ambitions position it as a middle power actor in the emerging multipolar order. But power alone does not confer leadership. Leadership also demands moral clarity and strategic independence.

Modi’s visit to Israel, in isolation, is not inherently problematic. Nations pursue partnerships in their interests, and India’s engagement with Israel might have yielded tangible benefits for India. The problem arises when such engagement appears to eclipse long-standing principles and norms, strain other critical relationships and generate doubts about strategic autonomy that India always claims.

Foreign policy is not merely a sequence of bilateral visits; it is a reflection of a nation’s identity and priorities. India’s historic posture — balancing power with principle — gave it credibility among countries of the global South. That credibility is now at risk.

Modi’s supporters may dismiss these concerns as partisan attacks or media sensationalism. Yet the questions will not disappear. Who shapes India’s foreign policy? What principles guide its alliances? And how does India reconcile its strategic interests with its moral and normative commitments?

Until these questions are answered with clarity and confidence, India’s diplomatic narrative will remain clouded. The challenge before Modi is not simply to defend a single visit or dismiss an unsavory email. It is to restore faith — at home and abroad — that India’s foreign policy is guided by its own sovereign judgment and by the norms and values it has long claimed to uphold.

For a nation that aspires to global leadership, nothing less will suffice.

Bhim Bhurtel is on X at@BhimBhurtel