In response to Keshava's post: 'Things Have Changed' (1/9/09)
It is indeed sad that the media and members of the Hindu right are calling for India to launch an Israeli-like strike on Pakistan. Not only are such calls highly irresponsible-(to put it simply, Pakistan is not Gaza), they also betray a shocking admiration for strong arm tactics that are in brazen defiance of international law and basic human morality.
However, to suggest that India should return to a foreign policy that is 'defined by humanity and idealism' and thus 'flawed in the noblest of ways' is a mistake. Indeed, harking back to the past in this case is a mistake on not one but two counts:
Firstly, while the scale of the Israeli action on Gaza is indefensible, but we should not allow this action to disguise the fact that Hamas is not exactly an innocent organization. Military action of any kind, be it the bombing and invasion of Gaza or the rocket attacks on Israel are wrong and must be condemned. Certainly if Hamas had the capability of inflicting more casualties on Israel, they would. However one suspects that the India of the past would not have condemned, or certainly not condemned with equal severity, the actions of both Hamas and Israel. One suspects that the India of old would have taken the line that Hamas is acting as a 'resistance movement, fighting to win back the land of its people'. Such a stand is counter-productive on many counts-it's human nature to cheer the underdog, but the underdog in this case (Hamas) could easily metamorphosise into a repressive regime in its own right, if given the chance. The current governments more guarded response to the conflict must be applauded.
Secondly, I dispute the claim that there was a time 'when the Indian approach to distant global events was defined by humanity and idealism' at all. Indian support for the Palestinian cause may have had some root in genuine sympathy for the Palestinian people, but I believe it originated as a result not of idealism but of self-interest. Indeed I believe that self-interest has been a part of India’s foreign policy towards the Israel-Palestine issue since and indeed before independence. I would argue that India’s support for the Palestinian cause was based on at least two major assumptions:
1) That this support would win over Muslim countries around the world, and particularly in the Arab lands, to Indias side in the UN, the NAM and as a counterweight to Pakistan. Indian support for the Palestinian cause had a lot to do with Indias desire to be a leader of the third world. There are 51 nations with largely Muslim populations, and all of them fell at one time under the banner of the third world.
2) That Indian support for the Palestinian's would win over large portions of the country's own Muslim population. The Hindu right would describe it as appeasement; those in charge of India's foreign policy at the time would view it as a chance to build much needed bridges between an alienated community wondering if it made the right choice to remain in India, and the rest of the country. It doesn’t matter what you call it-in this case, 'appeasement' and 'building bridges' are different names for the same thing. Foreign policy in India has for the longest time been viewed as an extension of domestic policy-one need look back at various events, including Mahatma Gandhi’s unequivocal support for the Khilafat movement (1919), and his decision to define the 'Khilafat wrong' as one of the three central reasons for the launching of the non-cooperation movement, to vindicate this statement. One is forced to question whether Gandhi’s support for the Khilafatis was idealistic-one in fact wonders whether Gandhi personally believed in the Khilafat cause at all. What is certainly true is that he saw the Khilafat movement as an opportunity to include the Muslim community in the wider independence movement. Similarly, one of the reasons for India's support to Palestine was to convince Indian Muslims that India was prepared to stand up for Muslims even in a distant land, and thus reassure them that they were truly safe in India itself.
India’s current stand on the Israel-Palestine issue, which balances a condemnation of the disproportionate use of force by the Israelis as well as the use of violence as a political tool by Hamas on the one hand, and a support for the PLO and a two state solution on the other, is more evolved, responsible and mature than its hypocritical, pedantic past.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Monday, January 12, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Things have changed
The ongoing atrocities in Gaza, and the cloying admiration of Sangh Parivar right-wingers for Israel's military machine (as expressed in the recent New Indian Express front-page headline: "Israel Strikes While India Dithers") led to me recall a time when Indian attitudes to Israelis and Palestinians were radically different to what they are today.
The Indian response to the Jewish Question was led by Gandhi, in a famous article in Harijan in 1938. The Mahatma, while asserting his deep sympathies for the Jews (his disgust at Hitler partly explains his pro-British stance during World War II), took issue with the principles behind Zionism. The Biblical land of Palestine, he contended, was "not a geographical tract"; when other religious groups did not have states based on scriptural promises, why should the Jews? To "partly or wholly" create a Jewish national home in Palestine would be to do a grave injustice to the Arabs. Gandhi asserted that Palestine was as integrally a home to the Arabs as England was to the English and France to the French. Territorial claims and aspirations, he wrote, were to be made on the basis of residence (a literal rather than figurative "home"), not religion.
In the first four decades after independence, the series of Congress governments took their cues on this issue from the Mahatma. On 29 November 1947, India (along with Pakistan) was one of only 13 countries that voted against the UN Partition Plan to create two states and a UN-administered "zone" out of Palestine. India's opposition to the plan was deeply grounded in an opposition to the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. India, indeed, did not even extend diplomatic recognition to the state of Israel until the early 1990s.
In retrospect, the attitudes of Gandhi and Nehru towards the issue of Palestine were significantly mistaken. By 1947, a third of the population of the region was Jewish, and there were thus territorial claims to a national state that ran deeper than mere textuality. Additionally, the Mahatma gave insufficient consideration to the role that creating a Jewish state would play in redressing the horrors of the Holocaust- after all, Jews had never received humane treatment in Europe, being best treated in, of all places, the Muslim world (prior to the 1920s). Gandhi would, one suspects, have advocated a one-state solution, the creation of an India-type secular state in the region. But I think it is fair to say that since no side was ever acceptable to this idea, it is an unviable one. And in any case, to revisit today the notion that Israel has no right to exist is counterproductive, to say the least.
Nevertheless, the Indian attitude was flawed in the noblest of ways. It showcased a deeply felt concern for the Palestinian Arabs that is a fitting riposte, if any were needed, to the silly claims of those who accuse the founders of the Indian state of being covertly anti-Muslim. Gandhi's distaste for state creation and the dispossession of people on the basis of religion is one that I entirely share. And when the angry middle class and their spokespeople in the media- the irresponsibly shrill Arnab Goswami and Barkha Dutt- demand Israeli-style "retribution"; a demand that is a mere cloak for Islamophobia of the worst kind; it is impossible not to be wistful for a time when the Indian approach to distant global events was defined by humanity and idealism.
The Indian response to the Jewish Question was led by Gandhi, in a famous article in Harijan in 1938. The Mahatma, while asserting his deep sympathies for the Jews (his disgust at Hitler partly explains his pro-British stance during World War II), took issue with the principles behind Zionism. The Biblical land of Palestine, he contended, was "not a geographical tract"; when other religious groups did not have states based on scriptural promises, why should the Jews? To "partly or wholly" create a Jewish national home in Palestine would be to do a grave injustice to the Arabs. Gandhi asserted that Palestine was as integrally a home to the Arabs as England was to the English and France to the French. Territorial claims and aspirations, he wrote, were to be made on the basis of residence (a literal rather than figurative "home"), not religion.
In the first four decades after independence, the series of Congress governments took their cues on this issue from the Mahatma. On 29 November 1947, India (along with Pakistan) was one of only 13 countries that voted against the UN Partition Plan to create two states and a UN-administered "zone" out of Palestine. India's opposition to the plan was deeply grounded in an opposition to the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. India, indeed, did not even extend diplomatic recognition to the state of Israel until the early 1990s.
In retrospect, the attitudes of Gandhi and Nehru towards the issue of Palestine were significantly mistaken. By 1947, a third of the population of the region was Jewish, and there were thus territorial claims to a national state that ran deeper than mere textuality. Additionally, the Mahatma gave insufficient consideration to the role that creating a Jewish state would play in redressing the horrors of the Holocaust- after all, Jews had never received humane treatment in Europe, being best treated in, of all places, the Muslim world (prior to the 1920s). Gandhi would, one suspects, have advocated a one-state solution, the creation of an India-type secular state in the region. But I think it is fair to say that since no side was ever acceptable to this idea, it is an unviable one. And in any case, to revisit today the notion that Israel has no right to exist is counterproductive, to say the least.
Nevertheless, the Indian attitude was flawed in the noblest of ways. It showcased a deeply felt concern for the Palestinian Arabs that is a fitting riposte, if any were needed, to the silly claims of those who accuse the founders of the Indian state of being covertly anti-Muslim. Gandhi's distaste for state creation and the dispossession of people on the basis of religion is one that I entirely share. And when the angry middle class and their spokespeople in the media- the irresponsibly shrill Arnab Goswami and Barkha Dutt- demand Israeli-style "retribution"; a demand that is a mere cloak for Islamophobia of the worst kind; it is impossible not to be wistful for a time when the Indian approach to distant global events was defined by humanity and idealism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)