The foreign policy of India was founded on the principle of non-alignment and its unstinting support to all national liberation movements. It was reflected in its policy towards all the struggles including the Middle East. India was one the leading countries which opposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel in November 1947. Since then, India had been a moral and physical supporter for the Palestinian struggle for an independent state until 1992. The role of India as the champion of non-align movement always inspired the Palestinians to continue its struggle for an independent state. Unfortunately, this trend gradually waned especially when India accorded recognition to the State of Israel in 1992. When the BJP government under Vajpayee came to power in 1998, Indian foreign policy was shifted from non-alignment to strategic-diplomatic interest towards the USA and Israel. It marked the end of India’s age-old policy of supporting national liberation movements and the fight against colonialism and imperialism. Since then, India was not ready to condemn the human rights violation of Israel against the Palestinians. The remarkable development of Indo-Israeli relation was a setback for the Indo-Arab relations, taking into account of India’s dependency of oil in the Gulf region and the future of millions of Indian labour force in the Middle East. In fact, the ominous trend of Indian foreign policy was that the BJP government established close ties with Israel mainly with the view to contain Islamic terrorism. According to Sangh Parivar, Israel already proved its capability of facing the Palestinian terrorism.
Genesis of Indian Response to the Palestine Question
India’s relation with the Palestinians dates back to Indian independence movement. Gandhi’s attempt to woo Indian Muslims for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity and Nehru’s negative assessment of the Zionist movement, which he considered the child of imperialism, led to the Indian National Congress to adopt a pro-Arab policy in the Arab-Jewish conflict. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had in their writings and speeches talked the denial of justice to the Palestinians. Gandhiji was against the partition of Palestinians and said that Palestinians should not pay for the crimes of Europeans.1 In 1947 just as India suffered the partition of the subcontinent, the government proposed a plan as a member of the UN Special Committee on Palestine to create a federal state with autonomy for Jewish residents of Palestine. The Plan was rejected, and India joined Arab nations to oppose the partition of the region.2
Nehru opened the doors to diplomatic association in the 1950s, especially when the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Walter Eytan, visited India in 1952, but with the Suez crisis of 1956 and growth of Arab nationalism, the government remained reluctant to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. Nehru in his speech in Parliament on 7 August 1958 explained why India had no diplomatic relation with Israel:
This attitude was adopted after careful consideration of the balance of forces. It is not a matter of high principle, but serve and be helpful in that area. We should like the problem between Israel and the Arab countries to be settled peacefully. After careful thought we felt that while recognizing Israel as an entity we need not at this stage exchange diplomatic personnel.3
In 1974, at the request of 55 member states, the ‘Question of Palestine’ was included in the agenda of the UN to address the status and fate of the people of Palestine. India was one among the 55 countries, which signed the memorandum asking for the creation of a separate item on the agenda of the UN.4
India adopted an ambiguous policy towards Israel deciding on a half-hearted delayed recognition of the Jewish state but refusing to establish full diplomatic relations. The perception of serving Indian national interests by a negative policy towards Israel in the Middle East was so strong among the Indian leadership in spite of the failure of Arab support of India’s war efforts with Pakistan (1965 and 1971) and China (1962).5 India was an active member of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People, established in 1975. India has consistently supported Palestinian’s cause in NAM meetings. India was founder member of the NAM Ministerial Committee on Palestine. In 1975, India became the first non-Arab state to recognize the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO office in New Delhi was accorded full diplomatic recognition by the government of India in March 1980. Moreover, India was one of the first countries to recognize the state of Palestine in 1988.6 Hence for almost four decades, the Indian government, mainly led by Nehru’s Congress Party, stayed close to Arab nationalism had refused to engage in diplomatic relations with Israel as long as the Arab-Israeli problem remained unsettled.
Events Leading to Transformation of Indian Policy
In the years following independence, India, suspicious of the US, maintained a stance that was ostensibly non-aligned, although in practice favourably inclined towards the Soviet Union. It also adopted a rhetoric stance supportive of the Palestinian cause and contrary to Israel. The reasons for this are complex and yet fully explained. The role of Nehru as the leftist, intellectual, and the intuitive championing of the downtrodden always inspired the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. This continued, and to some extent strengthened, during the period of Indira Gandhi. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the last decade of the last century and the rise of American hegemony in what is now conventionally called as a unipolar world, led to a major rethink of India’s stance vis-à-vis the United States, and more recently, Israel.7
When Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime minister of India in October 1984, he signaled a fresh Indian approach towards Israel. However, Rajiv Gandhi could not make much head way to establish normal relations with Israel fearing public protest. It was during the period of the late Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, under the pretext of the on going Middle East peace process.8 At the pragmatic level, the traders and business lobby root for closer relations with Israel. This money conscious class, which has become most vocal in claiming that business interests should be the key component in India’s foreign policy decisions, was not ready to think about the Palestinians. Since Palestine has little to offer financially or technologically, while Israel can sell to India what the US refuses to sell, these pragmatists insists that New Delhi has no option but to open the door towards ‘valuable’ Israel.
In fact, it was the imperatives of the changed global and regional politico-strategic situation New Delhi gradually de-linked its Israel policy from the Arab-Israeli conflict and developed a new perception of common interests with Jerusalem. Since the normalization of diplomatic relations in 1992, the two countries have rapidly developed close relations and cooperate in many areas of mutual interest-cultural, economic, political and matters of defence and security. Over a period of five years, India and Israel developed the vast institutional area of bilateral relations which in normal circumstances requires a decade or more. The establishment of full diplomatic ties also paved the way for greater economic cooperation between the two countries. However, India had indirect ties with Israel almost clandestine nature. Soon after the Indo-China war, Israel Chief of Staff General David Shaltiel visited India in 1963. After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in October 1984, India sought Israel’s help to improve the protection of its important people. It was also believed that since early 1980s, India and Israel were engaged in a secret dialogue over destroying Pakistan’s nuclear facility in Kahuta and signaling military agreements.9
The normalization of bilateral ties in the post-cold war period enabled India and Israel to develop their security and commercial interests. During this period of uncertainty the Indian military establishment was facing a series of challenges. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, India’s longstanding ally and the biggest supplier of arms, was a big strategic blow to India. Suddenly, crucial supplies of arms and military spare parts were interrupted. India felt the need to diversify its defense suppliers, realizing the dangers of too much dependence on one source. Israel’s developed and research-oriented industrial-military complex is viewed by India as a good option answering some of its defence and security needs. Israel’s sophisticated expertise in manufacturing and upgrading high-combat aircraft, anti-tactical ballistic missiles, electronic warfare and communication equipment, as well as security technology are of particular interest to India. The Indian military officials are not only interested in Israeli weapons and technology, but they have also shown interest in the Israel Defence Force’s successful warfare strategies and concepts.10
The Policy Perspectives of Vajpayee Government
The ground shifted in 1998 when the Hindu-Right wing forged a coalition government, exploded nuclear weapons and proceeded to reach out to both the US and Israel, trying to create a Washington-Tel Aviv-New Delhi entente against communism and Islam- the problem ideologies as posed by US Political Scientist Samuel Huntington’s style of fundamentalist geopolitics. The Sangh Parivar groups had special interest towards Israel. The Israeli war against Arabs was considered a model for the Sangh Parivar group not only to face the challenge of Pakistan but also Islam and Muslims in general. Hindutva’s alliance with the Jewish-Zionist state is not so strange after all, because at the ideological level Hindutva is much of the race-state, and both cast aspersions at the presence of a Muslim minority.
There seems to be an ideological affinity between Israel’s right wing parties (to which Sharon belongs) the Jana Sangh and the BJP. Israel glorifies Zionism and according to Harvard Sociologist, Natham Glazer, it is synonymous with democratic principles of equality of human rights. But in Israel there is a ban on the “inter-denominational marriage”. There is only the “Jewish nation” and the “Jewish people”, recognized under Zionism. These are and will always remain the “chosen people” of the Old Testament. The BJP with its Sangh Parivar believes in similar ideology of an exclusive Hindu nation or “Hindu Rashtra”.11
When the Hindu right government came to power in 1998, the issue of terrorism took on a new urgency, since this government was prone to depict any act of violence by a Muslim as terrorism, and consequently any act of violence by a Hindu as either self-defense or the resentment of years of tyranny. In 1994, L.K.Advani, then Leader of Opposition in India and major groups in the Hindu Right, visited Israel and has since developed warm ties with the Zionist elements in the Israeli establishment. The Indo-Israeli relationship became warmer after the 1999 artillery duds between Pakistan and Indian forces in Kargil. Israel rushed to provide needed military technologies to New Delhi. Since then ties between the two nations produced a bloomy defense trade and rising commercial ties. During his visit to Israel in 2000, Advani, the then Home Minister, said that he wanted to learn how Israel has dealt with Islamic fundamentalism. He expressed his admiration to Israel’s Mossad, for its proved expert in this field. Jaswant Singh, the then External affairs Minister also accompanied Advani. It was followed by the visit of Brajesh Mishra, the then Indian National Security Advisor. Similarly, the then Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, came to India twice in August 2000 and January 2001.12
The visit of Israeli Prime minister, Ariel Sharon to India in September 2003 was a turning point in the history of India’s foreign policy towards Middle East.13 Sharon, heading a 150-member delegation during this first ever visit by an Israeli Prime minister to India, intended to make some defence and trade ties to pave the way for a three-way strategic alliance with the US. Although India extended a warm welcome to Israeli Prime Minister at official level, there was a strong protest from many quarters stating that it would undermine the country’s stand on the Palestine issue. Sharon was no consistent opponent of terrorism, but himself guilty of bitter forms of terrorism against Palestinian people. He deserved to be tried as a war criminal for the Sabra and Chatilla massacres of 1982. He was also responsible for the killing of 17,000 civilian in Lebanon in an unprovoked war. A massive protest was organized against the Sharon on 9 September by various left and democratic organizations including CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML), RSP, Forward Block and Janatha Dal (S). They claimed, “it was a grave reversal of nationally accepted policy on Palestine”. The protest also came from the Amnesty International which had asked the Government to take up the issue of human rights violation of Palestinians and the illegal occupation of their territory by Israel. It is, however, significant that the day after Sharonn’s departure, 18 Arab diplomats were invited by the Ministry of External Affairs to assure them that India continued to support the Palestinian cause. Their lingering doubts can be summarized in the following words of a diplomat. “The overwhelming reception that India gave to Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon makes us ask ourselves: what happened to fifty years of Indo-Arab relations? Perhaps it was never built on strong enough foundations.14
In spite of all these protests, Sharon successfully completed his visit and signed six agreements. The most important level of discussion between India and Israel was related to combating terrorism. The BJP and Sangh Parivar strongly believed that establishing close ties with Israel would help India to combat terrorism. It shows that the struggle for an independent state of Palestine was treated as terrorism, a volt face traditional Indian stand based on Indian colonial experience. During the Vajpayee rule Israel became the second largest arms dealer with India, next only to Russia.15 The change of Indian attitude was visible even in the aftermath of the American led war against Iraq. During this period India continued its policy of appeasing American interest and was not ready to condemn the aggressive policy of the US against Iraq. Similarly, Israeli attack against Palestinians was also ignored by India. Moreover, India also rejected the Palestinian request for a mediation. The only Indian response in this direction was the statement that a permanent peace should be established in the Middle East. In the last couple of years, New Delhi had virtually forgotten the suffering of the Palestinians as a result of its Israeli policies. The inhuman Israeli policies towards Palestinians, the targeted assassination of Palestinian leaders, and the building of the Apartheid were all virtually glossed over by New Delhi during the rule of National Democratic Alliance led by BJP and Vajpayee. The Palestinian envoy to India, Khalid Sheikh, one of the longest-serving diplomats, was virtually declared persona non grata by the NDA government. He was recalled by Arafat, the late leader of the Palestinians under pressure from New Delhi.16 It also marked the departure of Indian attitude to the Palestinian question.
Conclusions
The Indo-Israeli relation was considered as a great setback for the Palestinian struggle for a homeland. It was during the period of Vajpayee government India established strong ties with Israel especially in the field of defence and science. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union India was looking for a defence ally against Pakistan. As the US was not fully comply with Indian defence requirements, Israel came forward to satisfy Indian demands. The visit of Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, made a great impact in the Indian foreign policy as it signaled the end of Indian support to the Palestinian cause. It was the Pakistan factor which motivated India to move towards the friendship with Israel. Moreover, the ideology of Sangh Parivar, that the challenge of Islamic terrorism can be effectively met with the aid from Israel, also influenced Indian foreign policy. For Israel, the nuclear capacity of Pakistan is a threat to its own existence. Hence this reciprocal benefit helped both India and Israel to come closer.
The Indo-Israeli relation also marked the end of non-alignment policy of India and its support to the national liberation movements. During the Vajpayee government India was not interested in responding to the major events in the Middle East, especially the US invasion of Iraq and the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. The Indian stand was that it would support a peaceful solution to the Palestine question, rejecting any involvement in this matter. This marked the fundamental departure of Indian foreign policy founded by Jawaharlal Nehru. The sudden shift of India’s policy was influenced by the Sangh Parivar, which always admired the Israeli tactic of targeted assassinations, ethnic cleansing and territorial aggrandizement. Further, India was interested to appease the US interest in the Middle East. If India continues a policy of this kind it would damage the traditional Indo-Arab relations, and the future of millions of Indians, especially from Kerala, who are employed in the Middle East. The statements of new UPA government under Manmohan Sigh that “traditional ties with West Asia will be given fresh thrust” and “the government reiterates India’s decade old commitment to the cause of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own”17 were not enough to rewrite the foreign policy commitments made by the former Vajpayee regime. It depends on the positive response of India to the struggle of the Palestinian people for an independent state.
Endotes
1. http://www.flonnet.com/fl2125/stories/20041217000405900.htm
2. Ibid.
3. Vijay Prashad, “Imperialism, Israel & India, Hindutva-Zionism :An Alliance of New Epoch” at http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2002/feb/vijay_prashad.htm.
4. http://www.india-emb.org.eg/Section%2010/Engl1B.html
5. http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm
6. http://www.india-emb.org.eg/Section%2010/Engl1B.html
7. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8146
8. See http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/world/global20000804a.html ; http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html ; http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm and http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html
9. http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm
10. Ibid.
11. Vijay Prashad, n.3
12. Ibid.
13. For details see n.9 and http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/03praful.htm
14. T.T.Paulose, “India-Israel Relations:Sharon’s Visit Signals Ideological Shift”, at http://www.asianaffairs.com/oct2003/diplomacy_in_israel.htm
15. See the major landmarks in the Indo_Israel relations at http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Nanjundiah_India-Palestinians.htm
16. http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html
17 http://in.news.yahoo.com/040527/137/2dc9b.html
