By Barrister Arooj Bokhari
The intensification of India–Israel relations—brought into sharp relief by India’s recent unilateral act of aggression against Pakistan on May 7th—reflects more than a tactical alliance. It signals an ideational convergence rooted in exclusionary ethnonationalism and a shared trajectory of disregard for fundamental tenets of international law.
Historically, India positioned itself as a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, having opposed Israel’s admission to the United Nations and recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation. This principled stance eroded following India’s 1991 economic liberalisation, culminating in active cooperation during the 1999 Kargil conflict, wherein Israeli arms and tactical support emboldened India’s military campaign, marked by indiscriminate targeting. Since then, bilateral collaboration has proliferated across the defence, surveillance, and ideological spectrums. India’s deployment of Israeli spyware such as Pegasus—used to target activists and political dissidents, as confirmed by Amnesty International’s damning exposé—exemplifies the insidious dimensions of this partnership. What began as pragmatic diplomacy has mutated into a strategic and ideological convergence—one that should alarm all nations committed to the preservation of a rules-based international order.
This foreign policy reorientation has been mirrored by a concurrent descent into chauvinistic politics at home. The systematic disenfranchisement and persecution of minorities in India has laid bare the fiction of its democratic credentials, exposing the state’s transformation into a majoritarian ethnocracy. The parallels with Israel are striking. Israel’s 2018 Nation-State Law enshrines Jewish supremacy, while India’s Hindutva project under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party entrenches Hindu majoritarianism. Both legal frameworks subvert pluralism, institutionalise discrimination, and violate obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These developments transgress aequitas sequitur legem, as they undermine the equilibrium between equity and legality that democratic orders are bound to uphold.
Each regime weaponises Islamophobic discourse to justify its repressive machinery. In Israel, Palestinian resistance is uniformly securitised as “Islamic terrorism”; in India, a similar narrative is deployed to vilify Muslims and demonise Pakistan. Laws such as India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the arbitrary use of preventive detention subvert the maxim ubi jus ibiremedium by depriving targeted communities of effective legal redress and institutionalising their othering.
Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank is in breach of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of the occupier’s population into occupied territory. India’s unilateral abrogation of Article 370 and the orchestrated demographic reengineering of Jammu & Kashmir similarly violate United Nations Security Council Resolutions 47, 91, and 122. Both states stand in violation of the prohibition against forcible population transfer—a war crime under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The existence of prima facie evidence suggesting apartheid and ethnic cleansing by both states is no longer tenable to ignore. In Israel, systematic home demolitions, segregation, and denial of residency rights amount to institutionalised oppression. In India, the ongoing demolition drives euphemistically termed “bulldozer justice” disproportionately target Muslim communities, reflecting a deliberate policy of erasure. These actions constitute grave breaches of the Rome Statute and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
Yet, despite this mounting evidence, accountability remains elusive. Geopolitical interests continue to eclipse the enforcement of international legal norms. The International Criminal Court’s investigation into the situation in Palestine has been politically throttled, while India’s persistent violations in Kashmir scarcely attract meaningful scrutiny. This selective application of international law erodes the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda and calls into question the impartiality and credibility of international institutions and the states that claim to champion human rights.
The India–Israel axis exemplifies how ethnonationalist states manipulate legal frameworks to entrench inequality and legitimise violence. To uphold the principle fiat justitiaruatcaelum, it is incumbent upon the international community to enforce legal norms universally and impartially. In the absence of such enforcement, the credibility of international law and the principle of equal protection risk terminal degradation.
Reaffirming the universality of legal protections is not a matter of moral preference but a juridical imperative. The integrity of the post-war legal order depends on it. Failure to act decisively risks emboldening regimes whose ideologies are antithetical to human dignity, paving the path towards fascism and genocide.
