When Democracies Choose Authoritarianism: The India-Israel Alliance

Last week, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood before Israel's parliament and delivered a speech that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. The man leading the world's largest democracy lavished praise on a country currently waging one of the most controversial military campaigns of our time, while barely mentioning the Palestinian casualties that have horrified much of the world.

This wasn't just diplomatic courtesy. It was a public declaration of a new kind of international alliance—one that should worry anyone who cares about the future of democratic governance.

The Great Reversal

For most of its independent history, India kept Israel at arm's length. The country that gave the world Mahatma Gandhi and non-violent resistance saw itself as a natural ally of the Palestinian cause. India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, opposed Israel's very creation, advocating instead for a secular state where Jewish minorities would be protected.

This stance wasn't ideological posturing—it was born from trauma. The 1947 partition of India and Pakistan had shown Indian leaders the devastating consequences of ethno-nationalism. When Hindus and Muslims were forced to choose sides based on religion, the result was one of history's largest forced migrations and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

For India's founding generation, Israel represented everything they were trying to avoid: a state built on the premise that one religious group needed its own exclusive territory to be safe.

The Modi Transformation

That changed when Modi took power in 2014. A devotee of Hindutva—a chauvinist Hindu nationalist ideology—Modi saw Israel not as a cautionary tale, but as a model to emulate.

The transformation accelerated after October 7, 2023. As civilian casualties mounted in Gaza and international outrage grew, India consistently abstained from UN votes condemning Israeli actions. More tellingly, India became Israel's largest arms customer, accounting for 46% of all Israeli weapons exports.

Modi's speech to the Knesset last week made the shift official. While he spent considerable time praising Israel's achievements, his reference to Palestinian suffering was relegated to a single, barely noticeable aside.

Ideological Twins

This isn't just about strategic interests or arms deals. Modi and Benjamin Netanyahu represent something more troubling: democratically elected leaders who share a fundamentally anti-democratic worldview.

Both see their nations in ethno-nationalist terms. In Modi's vision, India belongs to Hindus; in Netanyahu's, Israel belongs to Jews. Both view their Muslim minorities not as equal citizens, but as potential threats or unwelcome guests on land that rightfully belongs to the majority.

The parallels are striking. Both leaders have systematically undermined judicial independence, restricted press freedoms, and used state power to marginalize opposition voices. Both have rewritten their countries' foundational narratives, replacing pluralistic ideals with exclusionary nationalism.

Christophe Jaffrelot, a leading expert on Indian politics, notes that after October 7, "leaders of the Hindutva movement—including ministers and members of parliament—expressed their unreserved solidarity with Israel, denouncing not only terrorists but Muslims in general."

The Nationalist International Goes Global

What we're witnessing extends far beyond the India-Israel relationship. It's the emergence of what scholars call the "nationalist international"—a loose network of far-right movements sharing tactics, ideology, and mutual support across borders.

We've seen this pattern in the ties between Hungary's Viktor Orbán and the American Republican Party, or between European populist parties and Russia. But the India-Israel alliance represents something new: two major regional powers, both nominally democratic, openly coordinating their authoritarian practices.

Unlike European nationalist movements, which often conflict over territorial or historical grievances, India and Israel face no such constraints. Separated by geography and lacking historical conflicts, they're free to focus on their shared ideological project: demonstrating that democracy and authoritarianism can coexist—as long as you're careful about the packaging.

The Democracy Facade

Perhaps most troubling is how this alliance operates under the banner of democracy. India bills itself as the "world's largest democracy," while Israel claims to be the "Middle East's only democracy." These labels provide international legitimacy while masking increasingly authoritarian practices.

This represents a new model of authoritarianism—one that maintains democratic institutions while gutting their substance. Elections continue, but media is controlled, opposition is harassed, and minority rights are systematically eroded. The forms of democracy remain, but its spirit dies.

The Trump administration's "might makes right" approach has emboldened leaders like Modi and Netanyahu to abandon even the pretense of caring about human rights or international law. Modi's warm embrace of Netanyahu—a leader under ICC indictment—sends a clear message about which values really matter in this new world order.