|
A seminar on
“Palestine: 1967 and After” organized by the Indian Council of World Affairs
(ICWA) and the mission of the League of Arab States (LAS) in New Delhi on June
22 highlighted India’s still unwavering historical support for the Palestinian
people, but failed to address the potential political effects of the growing
Indian-Israeli ties on New Delhi’s more than ten-decade old policy on the Arab-Israeli
conflict in Palestine.
Only the criticism
of those ties by the participating Indian intellectuals, university professors
and journalists made up for ignoring the factor of the Indian-Israeli ties by
the major speakers like the Indian Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for West Asia
and the Middle East Peace Process, Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, the Director General
of the ICWA and the newly-appointed ambassador to the United Arab Emirates,
Talmiz Ahmad, and M.P. Sitaram Yechury as well as the Secretary General of the
LAS, Amr Moussa, whose contribution was read by ambassador Ahmed Salem Saleh
Al-Wahishi.
Similarly all
attending Arab and non-Arab ambassadors and diplomats, except for the
Palestinian ambassador Osama Mousa Al-Ali, also diplomatically avoided raising
up the issue, which could not but affect positively or negatively India’s
role in any Arab-Israeli peace process, which was the main concern of all
speakers.
Diplomats of the
Palestinian embassy in the Indian capital proudly showed this writer a four-dumum
plot of land in the diplomatic corps neighborhood of New Delhi donated by the
Indian government as a “present from the Indian people to the Palestinian
people” to build a complex for the embassy of the “state of Palestine.”
It was part of a
package of a $15 million grant donated to the Palestinian Authority during the
visit of President Mahmoud Abbas to New
Delhi in May 2005. $ 2.25
million of the grant was allocated for building the complex and the rest went
to infrastructural projects in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories,
Palestinian ambassador Al-Ali said.
In addition to
political and diplomatic support, $20 million volume of bilateral trade and
several shipments of medical supplies for Palestinian hospitals, India was
careful to cement her Palestinian ties culturally and had completed two-Indian
aided projects in the Gaza Strip, namely the Jawaharlal Nehru library at
Al-Azhar University and the Mahatma Gandhi library at the Palestine Technical
College in Deir Al-Albalah; a third project, a center of Indian studies, is
also being planned at Al-Quds University.
Historically India’s
Palestinian policy has been drawing on the ideological guidance set by the
world’s spiritual leader of non-violence and the father of Indian independence,
the Mahatma Gandhi, who consistently rejected Zionism over a period of nearly
twenty years despite unrelenting Zionist lobbying, because according to Paul
Power: “First,
he was sensitive about the ideas of Muslim Indians who were anti-Zionists
because of their sympathy for Middle Eastern Arabs opposed to the Jewish
National Home; second, he objected to any Zionist methods inconsistent with his
way of non-violence; third, he found Zionism contrary to his pluralistic
nationalism, which excludes the establishment of any State based solely or
mainly on one religion; and fourth, he apparently believed it imprudent to
complicate his relations with the British, who held the mandate in Palestine.”
(1)
Although his sympathies were all with the Jews,
who as a people were subjected to inhuman treatment and persecution for a long
time, Gandhi wrote, “My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of
justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal
to me… Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country
their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?”
“Palestine
belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England
belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to
impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to
reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or
wholly as their national home,” he wrote in a widely circulated editorial in
the Harijan of 11 November 1938, which was a major statement that has decided
the Indian foreign policy on Palestine and the Jewish question to this day.
Accordingly, India
was among 13 nations who voted against the UN General Assembly resolution 181
for the partition of Palestine
in 1947. In the same year, as a member of the UN Special Committee on Palestine
(UNSCOP), India
proposed a minority plan which called for the establishment of a federal Palestine
with internal autonomy for the Jewish illegal immigrants. She was also among
the first non-Arab nations to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in 1974
and the first non-Arab country to recognize Palestine as an independent state
in 1988; in 1996 India opened a diplomatic representative office with the
autonomous Palestinian Authority.
Talmiz Ahmad’s reference in his opening remarks
of the New Delhi seminar to the “resurgence of imperialism” in West Asia would
undoubtedly assure Arabs that India would continue Mahatma Gandhi’s heritage of
dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within the context of the
international national liberation movements against colonialism, but the
pragmatism which marked the Indian foreign policy in dealing with Israel,
particularly since 1992, would potentially compromise this approach sooner or
later. Arab and Palestinian strategists should not underestimate this possible
strategist shift in the foreign policy of the world’s largest democracy, which
a CIA study in 2005 envisaged as the second rising world power after China
during the next two decades.
New
Delhi is very well aware of her rising international status
and that’s why she has been vying with Japan and Germany
for a permanent seat at the Security Council of the United Nations. “The most
important development of the 21st century will be the rise of Asia. India’s independence from
colonial rule and the gradual evolution of a strong, stable, dynamic and
democratic India
has also contributed to Asia’s
resurgence… Our Government has re-activated the Indian Council of World Affairs
and has offered support to other think tanks to invest in the study of Asia, Africa and our neighbourhood… We have
imparted new energy to our “Look East Policy”, launched in the early 1990s.
This has contributed to a comprehensive re-engagement with Asia to our East,” said the incumbent Prime
Minister, Manmohan Singh, when his book, “The New Asian Power Dynamic,” was
released recently.
An indicator of the new Indian strategic shift
is the Indian focus on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process more than on the
struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation, a development that was
highlighted by the appointment of the veteran diplomat and former assistant to
the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, C. R. Gharekhan, as India’s Special Envoy
for the Middle East Peace Process.
Accelerated Pace of Ties with Israel
Since Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao decided
in January 1992 to establish full and normal diplomatic relations with Israel,
Indian diplomats felt it necessary to “brief” Arab ambassadors in the Indian
capital at regular intervals of India's ties with Israel, but India is now
Israel's second largest trading partner in Asia after Hong Kong and Israel is
now India's second largest supplier of military equipment after Russia.
Official Israeli figures show that Israeli
exports to India
valued $1.270 billion in 2006 and imports $1.433 billion, to double the
bilateral trade to more than tenfold since 1992. India's Ambassador to Israel, Arun Kumar Singh,
said recently that Israeli investments in India
top $1b. Agricultural, water and IT technologies in addition to fertilizers and
diamonds are major mutual trade concerns. The State Bank of India (SBI) became
in June the first foreign bank to open a branch in Israel's
diamond exchange.
However both countries are careful to remain
discreet about the defense component of their relations and trade. Israel
Aerospace Industries (IAI) Limited is looking for Indian partners to build two
types of aircraft and jets in India and set up software
and aeronautical engineering companies in Bangalore,
according to The Hindu on July 2. The Times of India on June 14 reported that a
top-level Israeli Army delegation, led by Israeli deputy chief of general staff
Major-General Moshe Kaplinsky, was to visit Jammu & Kashmir after
wide-ranging discussions with the top Indian military brass.
In August 1994, Israeli Defense Ministry's
Director-General David Ivry visited New Delhi
and Indian Defense Secretary T. K. Banerji visited Tel Aviv. In March the
following year the Israeli Air Force chief visited India and his Indian counterpart
was in Israel
in July 1996, one month after a strategic visit by the leading defense
scientist, Abdul Kalam. In April 1996 the first Indian defense attaché, an air
force officer, arrived in Israel.
Prolonged cooperation between India's Research and
Analysis Wing (RAW) and its Israeli counterpart, the Mossad, is also reported;
the RAW reportedly arranged in the late 1970s a visit by former Israeli defense
minister Moshe Dayan to India.
Defense also figured high on the agenda of
visits by President Ezer Weizman in December 1996 and the then Foreign Minister
(now President) Shimon Peres in May 1993. Comatose Ariel Sharon became the
first Israeli prime minister to visit New Delhi
in 2003. However, late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat used for decades to
visit New Delhi on a
two-hour notice.
Several factors contributed to the Indian
pragmatic shift in foreign policy. Internally India in the early 1990s
started her “look Asia policy” towards West and East Asia. Internationally the collapse of
the former Soviet Union, which led to the emergence of the United States
as the unipolar world power and globalization were the most prominent factors.
Regionally the nuclear and technological race with China and Pakistan made New Delhi more responsive to more opening to
the US,
Israel
and Japan.
The Indian-Pakistani conflict was another regional factor. Except for the
Baath-led Iraq and Syria, most conservative Arab governments were leaning
towards Pakistan; the historical visit to New Delhi of the Saudi monarch King
Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in 2005 had however balanced their imbalanced policy.
Diplomats of the ruling Congress party like to
blame the Israeli shift policy on the former ruling conservative Janata
(“people’s” in Hindi) party and the war with Pakistan in the Kargil district of
Kashmir in 1999, when Israel reportedly promptly supplied the Indian army with
much needed military equipment, including night vision devices, thus kicking
off a growing defense cooperation ever since.
But in September 1950 Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru (1947-64), a founding father of the Congress, granted Israel
de jure recognition. A few months later, Israel
opened a trade office in Bombay
which gradually became a consular mission, and the first Israeli consul took
over in June 1953; in early 1952, Nehru expressed his willingness to establish
diplomatic relations. Another Congress leader, Rajiv Gandhi (1984-89),
initiated a few direct and indirect contacts with Israel.
(2)
Arab ‘Green Light’
Arab and Palestinian diplomacy’s ambivalent
refrain from publicly warning against the growing Indian-Israeli ties could be
interpreted as a refrain from demanding from friendly countries what
Palestinians and Arabs have “green-lighted” for themselves when they
collectively chose the Arab Peace Initiative as their “strategic option” with
Israel in an Arab summit meeting held in Beirut, Lebanon in 2002; non-Arab
countries could not be more Arab and Palestinian than Arabs and Palestinians
themselves. It is noteworthy that the Indian-Israeli relations accelerated pace
in 1992, a year after the Arab-Israeli peace conference in Madrid, Spain.
However the presence of more than five million
strong expatriate Indian labor force in Arab countries, three million of whom
are to be found in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the more than
$25 billion value of Arab-Indian trade, including 60 percent of Indian oil and
gas imports worth $20 billion, are enough pragmatic reasons not to be
politically compromised by the newly-found pragmatic approach of Indian foreign
policy.
“When we recognized Israel and normalized
relations with her we did that after taking the approval of the Palestinian
leadership; we said, after you agree we’ll recognize (Israel) … the Palestinian
leadership told us: There are signed accords between us (and Israel) and we are
now talking to the Israelis; your establishing relations with Israel helps us,”
the Indian representative to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, Zikrur
Rahman told the London-based Al-Haqeq newspaper on May 12, 2007.
Zikrur Rahman is a grandson of the Indian Muslim
Mujahed Muhammed Ali Al-Hindi who died in battle in defense of the Palestinian
people against the British mandate-protected Zionist paratroops early in the
twentieth century, before Israel
was created. His burial place alongside the graves of other Arab and
Palestinian prominent freedom fighters is still standing as a symbol of Indian
solidarity and friendship in the backyard of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third
holiest site in Jerusalem.
Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist in Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and Palestine.
He is based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian
territories.
Notes
(1) Quoted by Professor A.K. Ramakrishnan,
“Mahatma Gandhi Rejected Zionism”, Released August 15, 2001, The Wisdom Fund,
Website: http://www.twf.org.
(2) P.R. Kumaraswamy, “India
and Israel
Evolving Strategic Partnership,” Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan
University, Israel,
September 1998.
|