Earlier, a provisional list of speakers issued in July had scheduled Prime Minister Modi to deliver India's address on September 26, but according to a revised provisional list of speakers issued here, Modi will not be attending the high-level session.

This calculated absence comes at a moment when global diplomatic fault lines are shifting, Palestinian statehood recognition is gaining momentum, and India's role as a Global South leader faces unprecedented scrutiny. The timing suggests a strategic recalibration rather than mere diplomatic routine.

This decision in Delhi is attributed to the aggravation of relations with Washington after the US imposed new trade measures, creating what some analysts describe as Trump Tariff tensions. Modi's absence means avoiding a potentially awkward bilateral encounter with President Trump, whose combative UN address on September 23, the first day of the UN session, has already strained relationships with traditional allies.

The diplomatic calculus appears clear: why risk a high-profile confrontation when India can maintain strategic ambiguity through ministerial representation? Modi's non-attendance allows New Delhi to sidestep immediate pressure on contentious issues while maintaining diplomatic flexibility.

For a leader who has built his international persona on personal diplomacy and grand gestures, this absence speaks volumes. Modi's previous UN addresses have been carefully choreographed affairs, designed to project India as a rising global power. His withdrawal suggests concern that the current international climate might not provide the optimal backdrop for such messaging.

India will be represented by External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, a seasoned diplomat expected to deliver India's perspectives on global issues, including peace, development, and multilateral cooperation. But Jaishankar faces a diplomatic minefield that requires exceptional skill to navigate.

The key challenge lies in addressing Palestinian statehood without alienating either Israel or the growing coalition of nations recognizing Palestine. As of September 2025, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 157 of the 193 member states of the United Nations (UN), or approximately 81% of all UN members. Narendra Modi has to do more now to allow Palestine as a sovereign nation in India with the setting up of a full fledged embassy.

Jaishankar's approach will likely emphasize India's consistent support for a two-state solution while avoiding explicit recognition of Palestinian statehood. "We support the two-state solution and have been public and unambiguous about it. There should be no confusion regarding our position," he has previously stated, but this formulation allows India to maintain its current stance without moving toward recognition.

India's position on Palestine reflects the complexity of its evolving foreign policy priorities. For the longest time, India had supported Palestine and its right to exist, but from the 1990s, her foreign policy — and engagement with the region — changed, with the establishment of full diplomatic relations with Israel. This shift has created a delicate balancing act that becomes more challenging as international pressure mounts.

India voted In favour Of 10 UNGA Resolutions on Palestine, abstained From Three, demonstrating a carefully calibrated approach that avoids complete alignment with either side. This pattern of selective engagement allows India to maintain relationships with both Israeli and Palestinian authorities while positioning itself as a responsible global actor.

However, the recent wave of recognitions by Australia, Canada, and UK breaking ranks with G7 nations creates additional pressure on India. As these traditional Western allies move toward recognition, India's position becomes increasingly difficult to justify on purely diplomatic grounds.

India's aspirations to lead the Global South face a critical test on the Palestine issue. Arab and African nations, core constituencies of the Global South, expect India to demonstrate solidarity with Palestinian aspirations. Modi's absence from the UN session could be interpreted as avoiding this leadership test at a crucial moment.

The contradiction is stark: India seeks to position itself as the voice of the developing world while maintaining positions that align more closely with Western powers on key issues like Palestine. This tension threatens to undermine India's credibility as a Global South leader, particularly among Arab nations that have historically supported India on various international forums.

Jaishankar's speech on September 28 will likely attempt to thread this needle by emphasizing India's commitment to Global South solidarity while avoiding specific commitments on Palestine. Expect references to historical ties with the Arab world, India's own experience with colonialism, and calls for peaceful resolution of conflicts—all while maintaining studied ambiguity on statehood recognition.

The Modi government's actions appear more driven by electoral calculations and domestic political imperatives than by a genuine realignment of foreign policy priorities. This domestic dimension cannot be ignored; India's large Muslim population supports Palestinian rights, while the government maintains strong ties with Israel for security and technology cooperation.

The challenge for Jaishankar will be crafting language that satisfies multiple audiences: Arab allies who expect stronger support for Palestine, Israeli partners who value India's current position, American policymakers concerned about regional stability, and domestic constituencies with varying views on the conflict.

Modi's absence and India's careful positioning reflect broader questions about the country's global role. As traditional power structures evolve and new coalitions emerge, India faces pressure to choose sides on issues where it has long maintained strategic ambiguity.

The Palestine question serves as a litmus test for India's Global South leadership aspirations. Can New Delhi maintain credibility as a developing world leader while aligning with Western positions on key issues? Or will pressure from Arab and African allies eventually force a recalibration of India's stance?

Jaishankar's UN address will provide important signals about India's diplomatic direction. A speech heavy on procedural language and light on substantive commitments would suggest India is buying time, hoping the international situation stabilizes before it faces more direct pressure to choose sides.

Ultimately, Modi's strategic absence reflects India's preference for maintaining flexibility in an increasingly polarized global environment. By sending Jaishankar instead of attending personally, Modi avoids being cornered on difficult issues while preserving options for future diplomatic engagement.

This approach may serve India's immediate interests, but it raises questions about the country's long-term global leadership ambitions. As international pressure on the Palestine issue intensifies and Global South nations increasingly expect concrete solidarity rather than rhetorical support, India's room for maneuver may continue to shrink.

The 80th UN General Assembly session will test whether India's diplomatic finesse can continue to substitute for clear policy positions, or whether the country will eventually be forced to make the difficult choices it has long deferred. (IPA Service)