India’s delayed response to developments in Gaza is symptomatic of the awkwardness that is becoming a feature of Indian diplomacy, comments Inder Malhotra

  On 11 February the Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement expressing not only its ‘concern’ but also ‘anguish’ over the plight of the one and a half million people of the Gaza Strip. But it made no waves in either this country or any part of West Asia that is the Middle East to the western world. The reason was obvious. India had spoken on the issue too late. Three weeks earlier the desperate and irate Gazans — oppressed and virtually imprisoned by Israel in their festering slums — had blasted the wall on the border with Egypt to be able to buy food, fuel and other essential supplies or even to breathe fresh air. The Egyptians were not amused, but President Hosni Mubarak let the people from Gaza visit Egypt in large numbers because ‘they were starving due to Israeli siege’. Ironically, the breached wall has since been rebuilt and reinforced while the Israeli blockade, albeit with very limited relief, continues.
   Critics of the government point out that New Delhi has not said a word about Israel’s ‘beastly treatment’ of the people of Gaza because it is ‘under excessive influence of both Washington and Tel Aviv’. The Left parties, headed by the CPI (M) (Communist Party of India, Marxist), are particularly strident in denouncing the government’s Middle East policy but others, including some Congressmen, share their view. The widespread impression that the Muslims of India are especially aggrieved with the ‘pro-Israeli’ policy has further compli-cated the issue. Many believe that ‘vote bank politics’ is distorting consideration of a delicate issue.
   Critics of official policy are, however, more than matched by its supporters, especially the pragmatists in the strategic and foreign policy community. They argue that not only have trade and economic relations with Israel bur-geoned but Israel has also provided India with sophisticated weapon systems and technology unavailable at that time from anywhere else, including the US. They add, for good measure, that almost all the Arab countries habitually oppose India over Kashmir at meetings of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). President Mubarak of Egypt, given the Nehru Award for Peace and International Understanding more than a decade ago, has not found the time to come to India to receive it.
   In brief, to the extent policy towards the Arab–Israel question is discussed here — and this happens to a very limited extent because most Indians are not bothered — it has got reduced to a heated debate between the votaries of realpolitik and the ‘idealists’ who consider silence on the plight and rights of the Palestinians as nothing short of ‘betrayal’.
   Time was when New Delhi was seldom tired of airing vehemently its views on West Asia, and especially on the Palestinian cause. Non-alignment was the creed of the era. Moreover, justice was clearly on the side of Palestine, occupied by Israel since 1967. The persistent and consistent American support to Israel, irrespective of the enormity of its actions, understandably exacerbated Indian feelings. But then things began to change. In Rajiv Gandhi’s attempt to improve relations with the United States, Jewish leaders of America had been very helpful. Apart from aiding the achievement of the desired result up to a point, this also initiated Indian rethinking on relations with Israel. Until then this country had treated Israel as a virtual pariah even though during the 1965 India–Pakistan War the Israelis had given crucial covert assistance to India.
   After the collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism and India’s embarkation on the road to globalisation full diplomatic relations with Israel  were established. Thereafter, relations with Israel expanded faster than with the US — until President George W. Bush appeared on the scene and the Indo-US nuclear cooperation deal became the centrepiece of the ‘strategic partnership’ between the world’s two largest democracies.
   To revert to Israel’s role as an arms supplier to this country, the Left parties and others opposed to what the US-Israel combination is doing in the region have repeatedly demanded the termination of military relationship with Israel, knowing well that no Indian government can accept this demand. The early warning system, the Barak missile, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and so on are simply not obtainable from elsewhere.
   Government’s critics are also angry because some time earlier India launched from its space station an Israeli spy satellite and is preparing to launch another. Critics perceive this as an anti-Palestinian move though it is difficult to imagine why Israel should need satellites to keep a watch on the territory it occupies. The government’s explan-ation is that the satellite launch is a purely commercial transaction, as with other countries. No one is saying a word about it but there is every possibility that New Delhi is receiving from Tel Aviv some undisclosed quid pro quo for the launch.
   What puzzles independent observers, however, is, why was the statement on Gaza not made a few days before the satellite launch, rather than several days after. Such awkwardness is sadly becoming a feature of Indian diplomacy. Consequently, an impression is growing that South Block has become afraid of saying anything that might displease the US. There can be no other explanation for New Delhi being tongue-tied also about the outrage of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia with the brazen support of the US and Britain and largely because of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) bombing of Serbia during the Clinton years. Kosovo’s secession runs counter to everything India has stood for.
   To be sure, Israel has a case. If Qassam rockets from Gaza — now ruled by Hamas that is at odds with President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah that rules the West Bank — rain on Israeli towns and villages, Israel is bound to retaliate. The trouble is that, as usual, the Israeli response is out of all proportion to the provocation from a country under its occupation. During nearly seven years, the rockets of Hamas have killed 13 Israelis; unbridled Israeli military action has killed hundreds of Gaza citizens, 65 of them in January alone. Ironically, Israel has succeeded in doing what it was anxious to avoid: its recklessness has narrowed the differences between Hamas and Fatah.

top