India and the Middle East: Strategic Rethink.
I am aware that this is a very controversial topic amongst most people. Yet, it is my hope that people will not reach a conclusion without reading the entire post. Also, I'm sure some of my views expressed here will also stir up debate, especially the gunboat diplomacy idea, but keep in mind that I want nothing except what is good for the nation.
On a purely historical basis, India has always had good relations with the Arab world. Trade was the primary basis of this relationship. After independence, India needed to keep a soft side to the Islamic world, to show that it would take care of its primarily muslim minorities (which it has done admirably, a few unfortunate, yet heinous incidents notwithstanding). The Muslim population, also barring a small fraction, responded favourably to secularism and have become a valuable part of Indian society.
So it would come as no surprise when India decided to oppose the creation of the Jewish homeland: Israel. Many Indian leaders (including Nehru and Gandhi) saw this as another act of British imperialism in the dying days of the empire. Realpolitik of the era played a significant role in this respect. India would need allies in its fight against Pakistan, and it would do well to remove much of Islamic support available to Pakistan. In short, supporting a small Jewish homeland (which, lets be honest, not many thought could survive an Arab assault. Its a testament to Israeli character that they have punched above their weight in over 5 wars against Arab nations.) and in return incur the wrath of the Middle East was not an exciting proposition at the time.
But how the times have changed. Not only did Israel survive, it flourished as the sole democracy and fastest growing economy in the ME and, with US support, provided to strong counter-weight to Soviet influence in the region. It has a flawless combat record ('played five, won five') and has produced some of the finest scientific minds in the world today. Israeli agricultural science is amongst the most admired in the world, paralleling that of much larger agrarian nations, such as India, China and the US. Its military technology is highly prized, and has shown its worth time and again.
So why didnt India develop an adaptive foreign policy with respect to Israel? I can but speculate. However, it seems logical to suggest that it would not have gone down well with the burgeoning Muslim populace, nor would it have made for strong foreign policy - how can you suddenly reverse a foreign policy stance cemented over decades? To do so would not go down well politically, as opposition parties would jump at the chance to screw the current government over. Yet ideally, the good of the nation should come before the good of the party. It was clear after 1967 who the dominant power in the Middle east would be - and it wasnt any of the Arab nations. Had the Congress party seized the oppurtunity to begin relations with Israel then, rather than seek its own politcal ends, we would have reaped significant rewards both militarily and scientifically.
However, hindsight is 20/20. The real question is, why are we not cooperating with Israel now?
The Israeli nation has also showed a certain character throughout its short history.
When faced with a grave threat to national security, it has eliminated it, ruthlessly and without hesitation. Morally reprehensible? Certainly. Could they have acheived the same by other means? Probably not. Israel has many enemies in the west and in the east. France, Germany and the UK all have strong anti-Israeli policies. In fact, the only western nations to provide significant support to Israel are the US and the Netherlands (forgive me if the Belgians feel they should be on this list). Only Japan in the east has supported Israel, albeit half-heartedly. With allies in short supply and a population of 6 million, a country needs to grasp any oppurtunity to survive. Im not an Israeli apologist - some of their actions were and are still wrong, regardless of what they acheived. However, I refuse to sympathise with those who claim dismantling Israel is the only solution to peace in the Middle East. They should probably brush up on history. Has it not been the Arab world that has threatened to "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" and repeatedly called for death to the "Zionist entity", while Israel has repeatedly asked for peace? Just who is the real aggressor here? Ideally, a dialogue is the best way to solve disputes (as the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has shown). One cannot expect the Israeli nation to make concessions while calls for its extermination are being made by the highest political figures in the Arab World.
But I digress.
India is not a bastion of morality in the world. Nor should it be. The strength of ones nation isnt developed by morality, but rather by pragmatism. India will not acheive the status it deserves by siding with the moral high ground (and even that is in question). The realpolitk displayed so wonderfully after independence should be shown once again. Who is the stronger party in the Middle East? Israel. Should we not side with the winner, rather than consistent losers?
Fine, so that might be a ruthless train of thought. Lets follow a different one, shall we?
As I mentioned earlier, India sided with the Arabs so as to prevent their intervention on the side of Pakistan in event of a war. That policy failed from 1965, when Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen provided assistance to the Pakistanis. This wasnt a one off - they did it again in 1971, 1984 and to a lesser extent in 1999. Many Pakistani troops get trained in Saudi Arabia (ironic, since they are much better trained than the KSA's own troops.) With the exception of the UAE, Oman and Egypt, the Middle Eastern nations (this includes the Palestinians) have always chosen Pakistan over us. And so we should still suppport them? Forgive me if I dont subscribe to that idea.
Nor should we worried what the Arab nations think. A little gunboat diplomacy isnt such a bad idea. Next time they support Pakistan over us, we should remind them who can send an aircraft carrier to their shores, or whose missiles can go farther. Am I starting to sound like a cowboy whose initials go GWB? Probably (and I resent that). Yet is it good for India? Undoubtedly. The UAE, Egypt and Oman have already seen the benefits of non-interference in the subcontinent - their trade with India has made them rich (as it has done for us). Perhaps the other Arab nations will see this benefit. UAE and Oman have also established relations with Israel, as have Kuwait and Bahrain.
Finally, coming back to Israel. In 1992, India and Israel established diplomatic relations. Since then, ties have improved rapidly. Trade has crossed $2Bn and is expected to cross $5Bn by 2007. Military ties have also strenghened between the two nations to a large extent. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
On a purely historical basis, India has always had good relations with the Arab world. Trade was the primary basis of this relationship. After independence, India needed to keep a soft side to the Islamic world, to show that it would take care of its primarily muslim minorities (which it has done admirably, a few unfortunate, yet heinous incidents notwithstanding). The Muslim population, also barring a small fraction, responded favourably to secularism and have become a valuable part of Indian society.
So it would come as no surprise when India decided to oppose the creation of the Jewish homeland: Israel. Many Indian leaders (including Nehru and Gandhi) saw this as another act of British imperialism in the dying days of the empire. Realpolitik of the era played a significant role in this respect. India would need allies in its fight against Pakistan, and it would do well to remove much of Islamic support available to Pakistan. In short, supporting a small Jewish homeland (which, lets be honest, not many thought could survive an Arab assault. Its a testament to Israeli character that they have punched above their weight in over 5 wars against Arab nations.) and in return incur the wrath of the Middle East was not an exciting proposition at the time.
But how the times have changed. Not only did Israel survive, it flourished as the sole democracy and fastest growing economy in the ME and, with US support, provided to strong counter-weight to Soviet influence in the region. It has a flawless combat record ('played five, won five') and has produced some of the finest scientific minds in the world today. Israeli agricultural science is amongst the most admired in the world, paralleling that of much larger agrarian nations, such as India, China and the US. Its military technology is highly prized, and has shown its worth time and again.
So why didnt India develop an adaptive foreign policy with respect to Israel? I can but speculate. However, it seems logical to suggest that it would not have gone down well with the burgeoning Muslim populace, nor would it have made for strong foreign policy - how can you suddenly reverse a foreign policy stance cemented over decades? To do so would not go down well politically, as opposition parties would jump at the chance to screw the current government over. Yet ideally, the good of the nation should come before the good of the party. It was clear after 1967 who the dominant power in the Middle east would be - and it wasnt any of the Arab nations. Had the Congress party seized the oppurtunity to begin relations with Israel then, rather than seek its own politcal ends, we would have reaped significant rewards both militarily and scientifically.
However, hindsight is 20/20. The real question is, why are we not cooperating with Israel now?
The Israeli nation has also showed a certain character throughout its short history.
When faced with a grave threat to national security, it has eliminated it, ruthlessly and without hesitation. Morally reprehensible? Certainly. Could they have acheived the same by other means? Probably not. Israel has many enemies in the west and in the east. France, Germany and the UK all have strong anti-Israeli policies. In fact, the only western nations to provide significant support to Israel are the US and the Netherlands (forgive me if the Belgians feel they should be on this list). Only Japan in the east has supported Israel, albeit half-heartedly. With allies in short supply and a population of 6 million, a country needs to grasp any oppurtunity to survive. Im not an Israeli apologist - some of their actions were and are still wrong, regardless of what they acheived. However, I refuse to sympathise with those who claim dismantling Israel is the only solution to peace in the Middle East. They should probably brush up on history. Has it not been the Arab world that has threatened to "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" and repeatedly called for death to the "Zionist entity", while Israel has repeatedly asked for peace? Just who is the real aggressor here? Ideally, a dialogue is the best way to solve disputes (as the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has shown). One cannot expect the Israeli nation to make concessions while calls for its extermination are being made by the highest political figures in the Arab World.
But I digress.
India is not a bastion of morality in the world. Nor should it be. The strength of ones nation isnt developed by morality, but rather by pragmatism. India will not acheive the status it deserves by siding with the moral high ground (and even that is in question). The realpolitk displayed so wonderfully after independence should be shown once again. Who is the stronger party in the Middle East? Israel. Should we not side with the winner, rather than consistent losers?
Fine, so that might be a ruthless train of thought. Lets follow a different one, shall we?
As I mentioned earlier, India sided with the Arabs so as to prevent their intervention on the side of Pakistan in event of a war. That policy failed from 1965, when Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen provided assistance to the Pakistanis. This wasnt a one off - they did it again in 1971, 1984 and to a lesser extent in 1999. Many Pakistani troops get trained in Saudi Arabia (ironic, since they are much better trained than the KSA's own troops.) With the exception of the UAE, Oman and Egypt, the Middle Eastern nations (this includes the Palestinians) have always chosen Pakistan over us. And so we should still suppport them? Forgive me if I dont subscribe to that idea.
Nor should we worried what the Arab nations think. A little gunboat diplomacy isnt such a bad idea. Next time they support Pakistan over us, we should remind them who can send an aircraft carrier to their shores, or whose missiles can go farther. Am I starting to sound like a cowboy whose initials go GWB? Probably (and I resent that). Yet is it good for India? Undoubtedly. The UAE, Egypt and Oman have already seen the benefits of non-interference in the subcontinent - their trade with India has made them rich (as it has done for us). Perhaps the other Arab nations will see this benefit. UAE and Oman have also established relations with Israel, as have Kuwait and Bahrain.
Finally, coming back to Israel. In 1992, India and Israel established diplomatic relations. Since then, ties have improved rapidly. Trade has crossed $2Bn and is expected to cross $5Bn by 2007. Military ties have also strenghened between the two nations to a large extent. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
- Mrinal Sharma.
posted by Sabre Slayer at 5:55 PM
4 Comments:
okay finally visited....
*newb question*
what's the meaning of "realpolitik"?
thanks.
bravo.... good post.
i agree almost completely.
although i do feel that you defend Israel too strongly.. i am of a far simpler opinion. Israel and Palestine are fighting each other... not against us. theyve BOTH made mistakes.. bad ones and they have to sort it out themselves. But thats no reason not to trade with either.
other than that.. your post is fine.
~King O
Thanks for your comments chaps.
Rishi - 'Realpolitik'=A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.
Herr Omen:
I shall respond to your comment ASAP.
Post a Comment
<< Home