India and Israel-Palestine

There is a lot of talk on if/how Modi has overturned Nerhru’vian doctrine on Israel as a result of the ongoing Gaza war. On foreign policy matters, countries act based on self-interest, so I don’t agree with that view. Of course, in domestic politics, the right will act as if Modi overturned Nehru’vian policy, and the left will behave as if yet another Nehru’vian achievement is being dismantled. But that is just politics as usual.

 

Pranay Kotasthane though says that nothing significant has changed in India’s Israel-Palestine policy now. He bases this on a Dutchman, Nicolas Blarel’s book on India’s policy on Israel since, believe it or not, 1922!

 

Between 1922 and 1947, the Khilafat movement meant that India’s freedom struggle suddenly did care about matters in faraway (modern day) Middle East (See my earlier blog on that). As the Congress and the Muslim League jockeyed for the support of Indian Muslims, the Congress decided the smart move was to oppose the Zionist movement that sought to create Israel.

 

After independence, Nehru found himself facing new reasons that forced India’s choice on the Israel-Palestine issue. (1) The Arabs had oil; and (2) the Arabs were being courted actively by Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. Therefore, Nehru decided that while India it would recognize Israel (Western pressure), it would not establish diplomatic contacts.

 

Then the Suez war of 1956 “hardened the positions of the Arab states and Israel, making it difficult for India to make any changes to its policy”. By 1969, the dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the Arabs actively supporting Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, and India being poor left the country with no choice but to recognize the PLO as the spokesperson of the Palestinian people and continue to not establish diplomatic ties with Israel.

 

By 1992, many things changes had happened - the Cold War had ended; India had started liberalizing; and there was uncertainty as to whether the Russians could/would continue to supply arms to India and India needed alternatives like Israel. For all these reasons, India established full diplomatic ties with Israel. Just 5 days after China did the same – China is always a factor.

 

Since then, India has continued its balancing act. It often votes for Palestine (though not in the ongoing Gaza war) while consolidating its military and technological relations with Israel. Therefore, the book says:

“Realism rather than moral considerations have guided India’s stance in West Asia. As a consequence, India is uniquely placed—it has been able to maintain a non-adversarial relationship with every West Asian nation.”

I would also add that India’s growing economic might and thus its increasing economic relations with Arab countries, a mutually beneficial setup, means the Kashmir factor matters lesser and lesser in India’s policy in the Middle East.