By S M AZHAR
India has an important position in South Asia because of its peninsular property so has the Israel as it occupies pivotal position due to its geo-political location. Before coming to a common table, the relation between these two countries went through many troughs and crusts.
Zionists demanded the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine in the late 19th century but at that time none of the Indian leader seems to have reacted to it. But then in 1923 Maulana Abul Kalam Azad the then President of Indian National Congress ( the party that constituted 80 percent of constituent assembly) asked India to make common cause with the struggles of Arabs of Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Morocco. Resolutions expressing sympathy with the cause of Palestine Arabs were passed in the thirties. Relations between the Arab world and Indian Nationalists were established. Also, Mr. Nehru addressed the Conference of ‘Peace and the United Kingdom’ that was held in London. In his speech, the then PM of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru also talked about the Arab-Israeli based Palestine Conflict. He referred to the Palestinian issue and said that the problem was raised only after the First World War and that it grew mainly as a result of British imperialism. He added that, in his opinion, this was not a religious conflict between Jews and Arabs but an Arab national struggle for independence against British treachery. “The Jews have the right to consider Jerusalem as their Holy city and to have free access to it but he denied their right to establish a national state in Palestine. For the Arabs, Palestine too is a Holy land. They lived there for 1,300 years. Palestine is not an empty land waiting to be settled by foreigners. Therefore the Arab opposition to a Jewish national homeland had to be expected” he said.
At the time the partition of British India, Palestine became an issue in the United Nations, the Indian attitude toward Israel was fixed: The Zionists were viewed by the Indians as people from Europe with a firm the backing of the imperialist powers. India proposed a federation of two autonomous Arab and Jewish states. Dependent on Muslim support for the political cooperation it sought in Asia, India opposed partition in the General Assembly in November 1947. So, the Indian delegation to the United Nations on November 29,1947voted against the partition of Palestine and as the establishment of two states: an Arab and a Jewish one, next to each other. The Nehru government felt that it could not afford to antagonize its own 40 million Muslims by voting for a partition that was not acceptable to their Arab co-religionists.
However, with the support of the United States and the Soviet Union, a Jewish state Israel was formed. Once founded, Israel was very keen on securing acceptance by Asian countries, particularly India. Israel put together many efforts to influence Nehru. Already many countries including the U.S, the U.K and the Soviet Union, had given recognition to Israel and it was expected that India would come up with a definite policy with regard to Israel. On the question of recognition of Israel, Nehru said, “any action that we may take must be guided not only by idealistic considerations but also a realistic appraisal of the situation. Our general policy in the past has been favorable to the Arabs, at the same time not hostile to the Jews. That policy continues. For the present, we have said that we are not recognizing Israel. But this is not an irrevocable decision and the matter will no doubt be considered afresh in view of subsequent developments, including the final decision of the United Nations.”
On 4 May 1949, the UN Security Council accepted Israel’s application for admission to the United Nations. A week later, the General Assembly also passed a resolution 15 granting membership to Israel in the United Nations. The then Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru told the Indian delegation to vote against the resolution: “India could not recognize an Israel which had been achieved through the force of arms not through negotiations.
It was not until September 1950, after Israel had been in existence for two years and had been functioning in the United Nations, that the Indian government accorded recognition to Israel.”The Government of India has decided to accord recognition to the Government of Israel”. This brief announcement on 17 September .It was precipitated by Nehru’s displeasure with the U.N. vote cast by Farouk’s Egypt on the Hyderabad issue. Many analysts are also of the opinion that it was hard to rule out Israel from the formal recognition.
Although the recognition of Israel had taken place but no formal ties between the two nations took place. In February March 1952 possibilities of establishing diplomatic contacts between the two countries were explored. Dr. Walter Eytan, Director General of Israeli Foreign Ministry, paid an official visit to India in March 1952. The visit was interpreted as a prelude to an exchange of diplomatic Government of India agreed Government of India agreed an Israeli ConsulGeneral since early 1953, not in New Delhi, the capital of the country, but in Bombay, termed as India’s diplomatic Siberia. The functions of the Consulate were limited to the State of Maharashtra and the Consul was not allowed to have any official or political contacts with the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi.
India’s overt hostility toward Israel for many decades had been an impediment in its relations with the United States and NATO nations. Its antipathy toward Israel had especially alienated many of India’s most ardent supporters in Congress who were pro Jews. Ironically, cooperation with Israel’s lobby in Washington started the process of normalization when the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) helped the Indian embassy campaign against the sale of AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) to Pakistan in 1987.
Then, after the defeat of Rajiv Gandhi in the 1989 elections rapprochement accelerated by large dimensions. The Janata Dal government that came to power ended anti- Israeli rhetoric and thus conditioned domestic opinion for a change of policy. In the early 1990s, New Delhi found the Israeli lobby “useful” in Washington on such issues such as Kashmir. Also, The Gulf War of January 1991, when India allowed the re-fuelling of American combat aircraft, was an important development in the bilateral diplomatic ties. The passage of pro-Pakistani resolutions by the Organization of Islamic Conference convinced Indian decision makers to play the Israeli card.
It was Congress government of P. V. Narasimha Rao, which came to office in June 1991 following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, to complete the process of normalization. So, it was finally on January 29, 1992, that exchanging ambassadors with Israel completed a process of diplomatic normalization that was left unfinished when New Delhi recognized
A desire to improve relations with America after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a growing concern with Islamic fundamentalism in the Subcontinent, and the fact that China had established full diplomatic relations with Israel finally caused India to change its course in West Asia. Normalization of relations with Israel was a symbolic gesture that the Narasimha Rao government employed to distinguish its foreign policies from previous administrations. It was a signal to Washington that New Delhi was prepared to come to terms with the post Cold War world and New Delhi recognized the new world order that existed after the demise of the Soviet Union. The Arabs viewed the inevitable exchange of ambassadors between India and Israel as the culmination of longstanding U.S. pressure after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and consistent with New Delhi’s need for additional funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
—The author can be reached at saeedazhar5@gmail.com