In Defence of Indian Idealism

Ashish's strident critique of my somewhat nostalgic characterization of Indo-Palestine relations centred on three points:

1. That Indian support for the Palestinians, like Gandhi's support for the Khilafat movement, was self-interestedly political rather than sympathetic;
2. That the same could be said in general of Indian foreign policy at the time, i.e. non-alignment and our desire to be a leader of the third world;
3. That our current Israel policy and our current foreign policy in general is preferable to our "hypocritical, pedantic" past.

I will respond to these in order. On the first point, I concede that, given the emotional resonance of the Palestinian cause, Congress governments, so often accused of "minority appeasement", might have been keen to play to the sentiments of India's largest minority. But this is only half the story. It is clear from the tone and argument of Gandhi's editorial (which I suspect Ashish has not read) that in his case his opposition to a Jewish national home in Palestine was moral rather than political. As for the leaders of independent India: there is no question that idealism, not self-interested realism, was indeed the dominant ideology of India's foreign policy in the 47-65 period. The two "makers" of Indian foreign policy at the time were Jawaharlal Nehru and VK Krishna Menon, two men whose idealism could at times (especially in the case of Menon) become naivete. India's desire to be a leader of the third world and its unwavering support of the Palestinian cause are entirely in keeping with Nehru and Menon's socialist, anti-colonial ideology, with its special focus on the rights of indigenous people to democratic self-determination.

What, then, of Ashish's third critique? I'm entirely in agreement with him on the question of Israel policy. While the Indian public, or at least its most vocal sections, might desire Israel-style retribution against Pakistan, our government has been commendably thoughtful and balanced in its approach to the issue, in contrast to earlier governments that clearly erred in not recognizing Israel. The greatest improvement in our foreign policy, the post 1980s thaw with the United States, also represents the triumph of a kind of realism (although not necessarily one that conflicts with idealism, given India's economic reforms). But his general point, that our current foreign policy towards the world is preferable to our "hypocritical, pedantic" past is, I believe, mistaken. Nehru certainly made great mistakes, and it is telling that we choose to remember them so much more vividly than his many successes. But the tradition of Indian idealism is infinitely preferable to the current, amoral situation in which we coddle tyrants in Yangon, attempt to play both sides against each other in Sri Lanka and explore the possibility of unholy marriages of convenience with Russia and China. I missed the part where wanting to spread our own democratic freedoms to the rest of the developing world was more "hypocritical" than blowing our own trumpet while simultaneously, like the United States, hindering other countries from sharing in democracy.