-> G21 ASIA
THEME SONGS AMERICAN DREAMS G21 AFRICA G21 ASIA G21 Digital Internet Postcards JOIN OUR MAILING LIST. You'll be glad you did. Jokes, updates, the whole she-bang goes straight to your e-mail box. Be part of the In-Crowd! GLOBAL*BEAT HOT LINKS IRISH EYES LETTER FROM SOUTH AFRICA MY GLASS HOUSE POWERSSOUND RADIOACTIVE RDR TABLOID HART THE RIGHT STUFF THE SEX COLUMN VOX POPULI RECOMMENDED DAILY REQUIREMENT ARCHIVES. LAST WEEK's EDITION MEET THE G-CREW! These are the people behind this jam-band every week. HOME TABLE OF CONTENTS & BACK ISSUES |
This new sentiment of closer Indo-Israeli ties indeed evidences a significant paradigm shift in India's foreign policy. While the Indian left celebrated Sharon's visit with a spate of protests, the visit is indicative of the new tempers that guide India's foreign policy. While the partnership may, in a sense, be natural given the ideological dispensations of those who are at the helm of the Indian State, it yet raises questions, serious questions, about where Indian secularism may be heading.
Shifts in foreign policy are only natural in a post Cold War dispensation where the old dualism of the capitalist-communist antitheses has been replaced by a new dualism of capitalism vs. militant Islam. But for a State that has, throughout the Cold War era, pursued an unrelenting strategy of foreign policy independence and demonstrated strong commitment to anti-colonialism, these new directions in India's foreign policy are so radical a departure from the past that they invite comment and encourage sober speculation.
India's foreign policy toward the Middle East throughout the Cold War period was guided by the foundations given to it by the visionary Nehru who saw in the Arab nationalism of the early 20th century a temper similar to India's own nationalist upsurge and struggle for independence. Severely critical of the British mandate of Iraq and Palestine, Nehru found himself siding with the Arabs against the Jews in Palestine as early as 1933. Though thoroughly sympathetic to the claims of a homeless and much persecuted nation to a State of their own, Nehru wrote in a letter to his young daughter:
The Jewish population is already nearly a quarter of the Muslim population and their economic power is far greater. They seem to look forward to the day when they will be the dominant community in Palestine. The Arabs tried to gain their co-operation in their struggle for national freedom and democratic government, but they rejected these advances. They have preferred to take sides with the ruling foreign Power and have thus helped it to keep back freedom from the majority of the people ...
India's support for nationalist movements and its anti-colonial policy continued right through the Cold War period - in Algeria, in Indonesia, and in Palestine. In all these cases, moral sympathies were bolstered by the immediate pressures of the ballot box. A government in New Delhi could ignore Muslim sentiments only at its own peril. The exception was Afghanistan where India's close economic-military ties with the Soviet Union and America's support to the anti-Soviet guerillas and military assistance to India's arch- rival Pakistan elicited a muted Indian response to the Soviet aggression.
India was the first non-Arab State to officially recognize the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in 1975. The office of the PLO in New Delhi was granted full diplomatic status and then recognized as the Embassy of the Palestinian State. In 1997, Arafat was on State visit to India and again, in 1999, when a government led by the revivalist BJP was in power, he paid a one day visit to India. It looks strange that a State that had hosted Yasser Arafat, Israel's sworn enemy, should also have hosted Ariel Sharon. What could have changed between then and now?
Before the above question is answered, a brief background on the ideology that inspires the BJP and its family of organizations, often referred to as "The Sangh Pavrivaar" (the family of The Organization), is necessary. The Sangh Ýherein referred to is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Organization for National Self-Help) which was founded on the ideology authored by Hedgewar and Golwalkar, both rabid Hindu fundamentalists. The Sangh has been at the forefront of the revivalist tradition that goes by the name of cultural nationalism, a name synchronous with its fascist ideals.
Both Hedgewar and, after him, Golwalkar, as the chiefs of the organization, espoused the Hindu cause which means founding Indian nationalism on Hindu culture, the protection of the beliefs and customs of Hindus from all criticism whether from within the Hindu fraternity or without,and the establishment of the Hindu State with the avowed objective and goal of the veneration and exaltation of Hindu traditions. In a booklet titled "We or our Nationhood Defined" that has been out of print for the last few years, Golwalkar proclaimed:
"Non-Hindu people in Hindustan must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but glorification of the Hindu race and culture ... they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen rights.'' (We or Our Nationhood Defined, Nagpur, 1947, pages 55-56).
New copies of this entire booklet, not long ago hosted on the RSS website, are no loner available. Reference to this book were taken off the website and a new ideology is now proclaimed publicly while cadres continue to be imbued with the old. The introduction on the website claims:
There could be only one explanation for the continuing march of the Sangh from strength to strength: the emotive response of the millions to the vision of Bharat's national glory, based on the noblest values constituting the cultural and spiritual legacy of the land and collectively called 'Dharma', comprising faith in the oneness of the human race, the underlying unity of all religious traditions, the basic divinity of the human being, complementarity and inter-relatedness of all forms of creation both animate and in-animate, and the primacy of spiritual experience.
However, quite revealingly, a banner on top proclaims the quotes from Hedgewar and Golwalkar:
"Yes, I proclaim-- This is the Hindu Nation" and "The Hindu Nation is essentially cultural".
It is from such origins that the BJP springs. While the party is a reincarnation of the Jan Sangh, a party allied to the RSS, all BJP's leaders have been and continue to be members of the RSS. Indeed, both the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of India have been members of the RSS since before 1947 when the country became independent. Even as this article is being written, the RSS website is open to queries on "RSS, BJP and Politics" to be answered by a Madan Das Devi. The BJP now heads a coalition of parties as the Central Government. While the RSS ideology continues to guide it, the pressures of coalition politics have checked any wholehearted attempts at implementation.
Golwalkar was openly appreciative of the fascist nationalism of Mussolini and Hitler. Mussolini's conception of the fascist state -
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State ... . (Benito Mussolini, entry for the Italian Encyclopedia, 1932)- is chillingly close to the RSS' conception of what the Hindu State should be, with its emphasis on the State as a cognizant mother (a deity to be worshiped), the need for perpetual vigilance against perpetual threats of war, and -- despite the monastic unity of all creation that the website proclaims -- an understanding common to all revivalist Hindu groups that the good of the nation lies in the glorification of a single cultural form. This latter principle is indeed the defining creed of "cultural nationalism" and underlies the idea that "The Hindu nation is essentially cultural".
With Golwalkar's death in 1940, the denouement of WW II and the birth of the Israeli State, the Sangh found a new example in the Israeli State. Though apparently contradictory, German fascism and Zionism provided similar points of reference for the conception of a Hindu State. Both proclaimed the inherent superiority of an ancient people. Hindu revivalists, however, remain closer to Hitler because of that same belief in the inherent superiority of the Aryan over the non-Aryan. Common with Israel, however, India has a problem in Muslim Kashmir where a secessionist movement continues to brew and, to the Sangh, the methods of the Israeli state offer an immensely attractive solution.
To revert to the question: what has changed between 1999 and 2003 that a State whose traditional sympathies have been with the Palestinian people and which has hosted Arafat should now host Ariel Sharon? The war in Kargil, the events of 9/11, the aggravation of the Kashmir problem and attacks by Pakistan-backed militants on the Indian Parliament - the very symbol of Indian democracy - have all tended to tilt the balance of political correctness in favor of the BJP and its fraternity of right wing organizations. Indeed, the BJP has been keen to improve relations with Israel ever since it came to power, even while ostensibly continuing with the traditional policy as regards Palestine.
America's "war on terror" has lent credibility to the exercise of military power to hunt down terrorist targets, even at the cost of the lives and properties of innocent populations. America's now open sympathies for Israel and its branding of a frustrated people as terrorists has sent signals to New Delhi that the US would be sympathetic to any Indian military action in Kashmir. An intensification of military action in Kashmir is now likely and India looks to Israel for providing an example. Added to all this is the fact that Islamic terrorist organizations are known to be linked through a network with substantial complementarities obtaining between the different units. A networking of governments may therefore be absolutely necessary to fight the problem.
While such networking of governments and strategic partnerships to fight the common evil may be necessary in and of themselves, such partnerships may exacerbate problems on other fronts, especially where extreme right wing ideologies may be seizing upon the problem to create conditions for the implementation of their own sinister plans. And given the ideological leanings of the Sangh Parivaar, an Indo-Israeli strategic partnership may go beyond the fight against terrorism.
For the moment, the Indian Government remains much impressed by Israel's version of "the war on terror". Amongst the most impressed is the Deputy Prime Minister , Lal Krishna Advani. Even before 9/11, in July 2000, Advani visited Israel with the objective of studying Israel's security system and to take lessons in counter-terrorism. This was despite the fact that Israel had probably the most dismal record record among nations, with the exception of the United States, in counter-terrorism operations.
The standard response of the Israeli government to any terrorist operations within Israel has been the use of overwhelming military force. Tanks have razed civilian Palestinian Arab settlements where terrorists were suspected of having taken refuge.ÝMissiles have been dropped on densely populated civilian areas. No discretion has been exercised to spare innocents nor any attempts made to bring the guilty to court. Taking anti-terrorism lessons from Israel can only mean the willingness to replicate this methodology.
Ironically, during his Israel visit, this student of Golwalkar also visited the Yad Vashem, the Israeli holocaust museum. Wasn't Golwalkar openly fond of Nazism? To top off his visit, Advani raised the possibility of Indo-Israeli nuclear cooperation. Naturally, while the Israelis did not respond, the Arabs were all agitated and quickly pointed out that India bought most of its oil from the Arab world.
The ideological bases of the BJP's desire to establish firm ties with Israel were more amply brought out during External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Sinha's, visit to Israel. Sinha made two statements that were seen back home as faux-pas.ÝSinha attributed India's traditional sympathies for the Palestinian cause and the pro-Arab tilt of the Nehru years to the politics of the Muslim votebank.
"It was felt that injustice must not be done to Muslims ... India's Israel policy became captive to domestic policy and therefore an unstated veto."Ý(Jyoti Malhotra, "Arab Diplomats Sore with Jaswant, Advani" The Indian Express, July 17,2000)
Clearly, to Mr. Sinha, the Muslims, as parts of the electorate, need not be heeded. He went on to add that India had a 'civilizational outlook' suggesting that his Government subscribed to the Huntington thesis and wished to ally itself with the West in the (imagined) battle between West and Islam. These two statements clearly bring out the ideological undercurrents below India's pro-Israel shift.
The similarities in the outlook of the two parties - the Likud and the BJP - are beautifully brought out in a piece written by Mani Shankar Aiyar for The Indian Express :
" And just as Sharon, the Butcher of Qibaya in 1948, and of Sabra and Shatila in 1982, is the same as the Butcher of Jenin, Bethlehem and Ramallah in 2002, so are the mass murderers in Gujarat of the same stock as those who assassinated Gandhiji in 1948, razed the masjid at Ayodhya in 1992, and undertook the genocide of Gujarat in 2002 ... ..The BJP is the Likud in saffron, as the Zionist Movement is the BJP in gaberdine. "("A Tale of two tragedies", The Indian Express, April 30, 2002.)
Coalition politics seems to be steadying the tongues of errant ministers as far as Israel (and Palestine) is concerned. However, the attempt now is to sidestep Palestine. The New Delhi Declaration of Friendship and Cooperation signed by Israel and India was silent on the Palestinian issue. The two sides avoided all references to either Palestinian or Kashmiri terrorism. However, Israel promised to provide India all material support in its fight against terror. This included the supply of surveillance equipment and anti-terrorism training for India's security personnel. The training bit again raises questions about whether India is now prepared to employ methods similar to Israel in the anti-terrorism campaign.
Sharon was accompanied to India by CEOs of nine Israeli armament companies. Though military sales and trade ties were the major short term objectives for the Israeli delegation, the BJP must be rejoicing over Sharon's proposal for an India-Israel-US nexus in the war on terror. Major complications, however, remain - Pakistan's close ties to the U.S and the need not to upset the coalition boat that would certainly be left rocking by an overtly anti-Palestinian stance given that most of the members of the coalition would not like to upset their Muslim voters. This accounts for the BJP's opposition to Israel's plans of deporting Arafat.
The nature of the Indian state probably remains the most difficult hurdle that must be overcome before close Indo-Israeli ties, that go beyond military sales, are forged. Though Sharon's visit was marked by both sides agreeing on broad generic similarities in the political situation and while Sharon harped on the threat posed by a common enemy - terrorism - to democratic societies, Indian democracy remains of a nature very different from that pertaining in Israel. The Indian constitution guarantees to every citizen, irrespective of his race or religion, equal rights before the Law. A vastly secular and impartial Judiciary ensures that such constitutional guarantees remain enforceable. A very different situation obtains in Israel whose Arab citizens have been stripped of all political rights. Constitutions, however, can be amended and changed. Will the Indian State go Israel's way?