Parliamentary Panel Raises Questions On PM Modi’s Israel Visit Timing Ahead Of His Address to Israeli Knesset

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares to travel to Israel on February 25, concerns have emerged inside Parliament over whether the visit is appropriately timed, given the volatile security environment across West Asia and a visible U.S. military build-up in the region.

Members of Parliament's Standing Committee on External Affairs raised the issue during a meeting on Monday, noting that the trip comes amid continuing conflict and uncertainty following the 2023 terror attack in Israel and the prolonged bombardment of Gaza, which has resulted in more than 70,000 deaths. The visit will be Modi's first to Israel in nine years. His 2017 tour had been the first ever by an Indian Prime Minister to the country.

Questions over security and timing

The committee, chaired by senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, was reviewing the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) budget when the Prime Minister's itinerary came up for discussion during the more than three-hour session.

At least one member questioned the rationale for undertaking the visit at a time when India has already advised its citizens to leave Iran because of fears of a possible U.S. strike. The member also cautioned that Israel could become directly involved in a wider regional conflict.

Replying to the concern, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said that all Prime Ministerial visits are planned keeping security considerations in mind. He did not clarify whether the trip would be cancelled if tensions escalate further.

During his two-day stay in Jerusalem, Modi is scheduled to address the Israeli Knesset.

Why no budget allocation for Chabahar Port?

The discussion also shifted to India's strategic projects in the region, especially the Chabahar Port in Iran. Several MPs asked why the latest Union Budget did not include fresh funding for the project.

Misri reiterated the MEA's earlier position in the Lok Sabha that India had already met its commitment of contributing $120 million for port equipment procurement and that no further financial allocation was currently required. Some members, however, accused the government of compromising India's strategic autonomy and allowing the United States to shape its foreign policy choices.

Diplomatic capacity and diaspora concerns

The panel flagged broader structural issues in India's diplomatic network. Members pointed out that the country lacks diplomatic missions in 41 nations. In several locations, a single Indian Foreign Service officer reportedly handles the entire mission with minimal staff support.

The MEA's allocation continues to stand at roughly 0.4% of the total Union Budget, which MPs said does not match India's expanding international role and global ambitions.

Concerns were also expressed about inadequate institutional support for the Indian diaspora, with members urging stronger outreach and resources to assist citizens abroad.