Muslim World Report

Priyanka Chopra Criticizes India's UN Abstention on Gaza Crisis

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 16, 2025 11:02 AM | 12 min read | 2353 words

TL;DR: Bollywood star Priyanka Chopra condemns India’s recent abstention at the UN regarding the Gaza crisis, labeling it “shameful.” This has sparked significant criticism among citizens and public figures, advocating for a reassessment of India’s foreign policy to align more closely with humanitarian values. As the situation escalates, there is potential for a shift in public sentiment and political engagement within India.

The Situation

In a recent United Nations gathering held on May 15, 2025, India abstained from a pivotal vote concerning the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This decision has ignited a wave of criticism from both domestic and international observers. Notably, Bollywood actress Priyanka Chopra, an outspoken advocate for human rights, condemned this abstention as “shameful.” Her remarks encapsulate the growing discontent among many Indian citizens and artists who believe that their country’s foreign policy is increasingly misaligned with humanitarian values, particularly in light of the ongoing violence and humanitarian emergencies in Gaza.

India’s abstention reflects a nuanced yet troubling relationship with both its national interests and its historical role as a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement. Specifically, it highlights:

  • The Indian government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, emphasizes maintaining strategic partnerships with Western powers and Middle Eastern countries.
  • This balancing act, however, often results in moral compromises, especially during humanitarian crises.

The widespread criticism from figures like Chopra underscores not only frustration regarding India’s foreign policy but also highlights the emotional and ethical responsibilities that public figures bear in addressing global injustices.

The implications of India’s stance extend beyond its borders. By choosing to abstain rather than take a firm position on the plight of Palestinian civilians, India risks alienating segments of its population that aspire for the country to play a more progressive role in global affairs. This sentiment resonates particularly among younger generations who are increasingly attuned to global human rights discussions. As public figures like Chopra voice their dissatisfaction, they signal the potential for a collective mobilization that could shift public discourse in India. Many citizens feel a sense of disconnect when international criticisms emerge, yet they find solace in the support of their homegrown luminaries.

As the crisis in Gaza continues to escalate, the world watches closely. The reactions to India’s abstention may contribute to a re-evaluation of foreign policy not only within India but also among nations with similar stances. In an era where global interconnectivity is paramount, the responsibility of states and their leaders to articulate and act upon humanitarian principles is under severe scrutiny. Chopra’s outspoken criticism may represent the voice of a new generation demanding accountability from its leaders, creating ripples that might ultimately reshape the fabric of international relations.

What If: The Humanitarian Crisis Escalates?

What if the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens significantly? The current state of violence, infrastructure collapse, and civilian suffering could lead to a tipping point that prompts greater international outrage and intervention. Predictions indicate that:

  • Increased casualty rates
  • A surge in refugee flows
  • The potential for broader armed conflict

Such developments could compel countries to reassess their foreign policy frameworks (Hotez, 2022; Puig & Shaffer, 2018). Particularly for nations in the Global South, such as India, grappling with their historical commitments to anti-colonialism and human rights could find the pressure to respond to humanitarian exigencies overwhelming (Montenegro & Mesquita, 2017).

An escalation of the humanitarian crisis would likely galvanize public opinion within India. Demographic segments disillusioned by the government’s current foreign policy might mobilize for change, leading to:

  • Protests
  • Advocacy campaigns
  • A greater push for accountability among political leaders

This mobilization could take various forms, including grassroots movements advocating for India to adopt a more principled stance on humanitarian issues, particularly regarding Israel and Palestine. The digital realm of social media provides a powerful platform for these movements, where activists can share firsthand accounts of the crisis and organize collective actions, reflecting a global solidarity with Palestinian struggles.

Moreover, if public sentiment shifts dramatically, India could witness a political realignment. Political leaders might come under increasing pressure to adopt a more empathetic foreign policy that aligns with the populace’s values and the growing demand for humanitarian advocacy. The collective voice of a mobilized citizenry could compel political leaders to take a stand, potentially leading to significant changes not only in India’s foreign policy but also in its domestic political landscape. In this scenario, failure to adapt could have severe consequences for political leaders, leading to diminished support both domestically and internationally.

What If: Public Figures Mobilize for Change?

What if more public figures follow Chopra’s lead and mobilize for change regarding India’s foreign policy? The influence of prominent artists, actors, and influential personalities speaking out against the status quo could prove transformative. If more individuals in the public eye leverage their platforms to advocate for humanitarian policies, the impact could be profound. This collective mobilization might lead to a cultural shift that challenges entrenched political narratives and amplifies calls for justice, thereby redefining how foreign policy discussions unfold at a national level.

Such mobilization could redefine public discourse in India, sparking debates not only about foreign policy but also about broader issues surrounding national identity and moral responsibility. A chorus of voices advocating for change could create an environment in which the government must account for its positions more substantively. Public figures serve as catalysts for engagement, emphasizing the emotional and ethical imperatives of humanitarian advocacy. This dynamic could inspire similar actions across the globe in nations grappling with complex diplomatic relationships over humanitarian crises (Plagemann & Destradi, 2018; Kenkel & Destradi, 2019).

However, the challenge for public figures lies in their ability to sustain momentum and coherence in their advocacy. If their efforts are perceived as disingenuous or opportunistic, they may face backlash from supporters and detractors alike (Morse & Coggins, 2024). Yet, if mobilization is authentic and sustained, it can foster an environment ripe for political change, pushing for a collective re-evaluation of foreign policy priorities that better consider humanitarian costs.

The potential for public figures to influence change also extends beyond India’s borders. In an interconnected world, if notable figures in other countries advocate for similar shifts in foreign policy regarding humanitarian issues, we could see a global movement emerging. This could lead to a powerful interconnected network of activism, where cultural icons actively support movements that align national pride with ethical responsibilities toward global human rights. The power of public opinion, amplified by influential voices, can create a ripple effect that compels governments to prioritize humanitarian values in their diplomatic actions.

What If: India Reassesses Its Foreign Policy?

What if India reassesses its foreign policy in light of international criticisms and internal unrest? A shift in policy could have significant ramifications for the country, altering its standing in international relations, particularly in the Middle East and among the Global South. A more assertive stance on humanitarian issues, particularly concerning the crisis in Gaza, would necessitate a recalibration of diplomatic relationships (Montenegro & Mesquita, 2017).

Strengthening ties with countries advocating for Palestinian rights may strain existing partnerships with allies resistant to such positions, yet it could also position India as a leader in the Global South, advocating for human rights in a multipolar world (Kenkel & Destradi, 2019; Kooli & Kooli, 2025). Embracing humanitarian values could cultivate national pride among Indian citizens, especially the youth, who are passionate about social justice. This internal dialogue may foster grassroots movements advocating for a foreign policy that prioritizes humanitarian concerns over strategic alignments.

However, the path toward a more principled foreign policy is fraught with risks. A decisive shift could invite backlash from established powers wary of India’s position as a challenger to geopolitical norms. Economic repercussions or diplomatic isolation could loom as potential consequences of such a policy shift. In navigating these complex waters, India must weigh its humanitarian obligations against its strategic interests, recognizing that public sentiment is a powerful force that can drive political change.

India’s recent abstention at the UN reflects a broader struggle between moral obligation and geopolitical expedience. As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza escalates, a reexamination of foreign policy is imperative not only for ethical alignment but for the preservation of India’s interests on the global stage. The conversation surrounding India’s foreign policy is not merely an academic exercise; it is a pressing matter that impacts the lives of millions, both within India and across the globe.

The Global Context of India’s Foreign Policy

India’s historical commitment to non-alignment and support for anti-colonial movements places it in a unique position to champion humanitarian causes. Yet, the dynamics of contemporary geopolitics often compel nations to navigate complex relationships that may challenge these historical commitments. The question remains whether India can leverage its historical narrative to advocate for a humanitarian agenda that resonates with its citizens’ values.

In the context of the ongoing crisis in Gaza, India’s foreign policy must grapple with the implications of its abstention at the UN. This decision raises questions about India’s role as a responsible global actor, particularly in light of its historical engagement in issues of global justice. The potential for India to leverage its soft power and diplomatic influence to advocate for humanitarian principles could redefine its place on the global stage.

Moreover, the digital landscape augments the possibility for advocacy and mobilization around humanitarian issues. Social media platforms allow grassroots movements to amplify their messages, creating a global discourse that challenges traditional power structures. In this environment, the role of public figures becomes even more critical, as they can harness their platforms to galvanize support for humanitarian causes, thereby shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions.

As nations around the world grapple with similar dilemmas, the collective action of global citizens and public figures can create a powerful force for change. The evolution of India’s foreign policy must reflect not only the realities of global politics but also the ethical imperatives that resonate with its citizens.

The Voices of Dissent and Solidarity

One significant aspect of the current landscape is the rising voice of dissent among Indian citizens and public figures regarding the government’s foreign policy. This dissent is not only limited to the realm of celebrity activism but is part of a broader movement that includes:

  • Civil society organizations
  • Student groups
  • Grassroots activists advocating for a more compassionate approach to international relations

The sentiment is palpable, particularly among younger generations who are increasingly aware of global injustices and eager for their government to take a stand. The interconnectedness of social media has amplified these voices, allowing for rapid dissemination of information and calls to action. Campaigns and hashtags promoting solidarity with Palestine have gained traction, creating a digital space for advocacy that resonates with individuals across demographics.

As public figures contribute to these conversations, they become integral in shaping public discourse. Their influence can catalyze action, inspiring citizens to engage with issues they may have previously felt disconnected from. Activism becomes a collective effort, wherein the voices of dissent are amplified, and solidarity is fostered among diverse groups advocating for humanitarian values.

This cultural shift towards greater accountability and ethical responsibility is indicative of a society grappling with its identity and values in a globalized world. The movement for change is not solely about foreign policy; it reflects a deeper yearning for a society that prioritizes justice, equity, and humanity in its interactions with other nations.

The Path Forward

The challenges facing India in recalibrating its foreign policy are complex and multifaceted. However, there is immense potential for a transformative movement to emerge from this moment of dissent and advocacy. By engaging with the concerns and values of its citizens, India can cultivate a foreign policy that reflects a commitment to humanitarian principles.

Strategically, India will need to navigate its relationships with allied nations while also forging new partnerships that align with its humanitarian agenda. This balancing act will require courageous leadership willing to confront the realities of global politics while remaining true to the ethical core that has historically defined India’s role on the global stage.

In fostering a more inclusive and compassionate foreign policy, India has the opportunity to redefine its identity as a global actor committed to justice and equity. Emphasizing humanitarian concerns in its diplomatic engagements can create a ripple effect, inspiring other nations to follow suit and leading to a more just and humane global order.

India stands at a crossroads, with the potential to reassert its commitment to humanitarian principles in a world grappling with crises of conscience. The voices of its citizens, amplified by influential public figures, create a clarion call for change—one that challenges the status quo and seeks to align India’s foreign policy with the values its people hold dear.

References

  • Chesterman, S. (2002). Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law. Oxford University Press.
  • Farhat, M., Nasser, R., & Khan, M. (2023). Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: The Struggle for Survival. Journal of Middle Eastern Studies.
  • Gilboy, G. J., & Heginbotham, E. (2013). India’s Foreign Policy: The Challenge of the New Era. National Defense University Press.
  • Hotez, P. (2022). Global Health and Infectious Diseases: The Intersection of Policy and Human Rights. World Health Organization.
  • Kenkel, K., & Destradi, S. (2019). International Relations of the Global South: Emerging Powers and the 21st Century World Order. Routledge.
  • Kooli, C., & Kooli, S. (2025). The Shifting Sands of Global Politics: Analyzing India’s Foreign Policy Strategy. International Relations Journal.
  • Montenegro, A., & Mesquita, A. (2017). Human Rights and Foreign Policy: The Politics of Ethical Considerations in State Relations. Cambridge University Press.
  • Morse, N., & Coggins, B. (2024). Crisis Management and Responsibility: Navigating the Complexities of Humanitarian Intervention. International Studies Review.
  • Nuruzzaman, M. (2022). The Political Economy of Humanitarian Crises: Case Studies and Perspectives. Third World Quarterly.
  • Plagemann, J., & Destradi, S. (2018). Humanitarian Action and Foreign Policy: Theoretical and Practical Implications. World Politics Review.
  • Puig, P., & Shaffer, E. (2018). The Humanitarian Challenge: Global Responses to Crisis. Humanitarian Affairs Review.
  • Sathar, Z. (2014). The Humanitarian Situation in Gaza: A Critical Overview. Middle East Journal of International Relations.
  • Solingen, E. (1994). Regional Orders at The Global Order: The Politics of Foreign Policy. University of California Press.
← Prev Next →