India And The World

[Guest]

<b>An Indo-Arab blunder?</b>
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/730/in1.htm

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Over the years, the Arab world has let India down even though the Asian  giant championed the Palestinian cause, writes Mustafa El-Feki</i>

When I compare how India used to view the Palestinian question, back when I 
was counsellor to the Egyptian Embassy in New Delhi 25 years ago, with how it 
does now, I cannot help but wonder how things change. I was posted in New
Delhi  in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when India was a major supporter of
the  Palestinian cause. The very idea of having diplomatic ties with Israel was 
offensive to most Indians. 

I once monitored a meeting of late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi with a
group of Jewish Indians in Mumbai and then wrote an article about it for the
Cairo-based periodical Al-Siyasa Al-Dawliya (Foreign Policy), speculating 
on the future of relations between India and Israel. In response, the Indian 
ambassador in Cairo filed an official protest with the Egyptian Foreign 
Ministry, expressing outrage that I brought up the possibility that India may 
one day move close to Israel. At present, relations between New Delhi and Israel 
are of strategic nature, with both countries in close touch, waging a common
war  against terror. Both have succeeded in damning the Palestinian resistance
and  the Kashmir insurgence as terrorist, not national liberation movements.

India  and Israel cooperate in many fields, including military and nuclear
technology.  So much we know for fact.

One question is in order, however. What made India change its mind and throw 
itself in the arms of a country that occupies Arab and Palestinian land, to
the  point where it has played host to Ariel Sharon? India and Israel have
their own  separate political agendas. India wishes to have access to US and
Israeli  technology, particularly in the development of weapons. Israel, for its
part,  wishes to have the political backing of a powerful nation. Besides, both 
countries have a common interest in monitoring the nuclear programmes of Iran
and Pakistan. Let's now examine some of the reasons that made India change
its  mind.

First, we have made the error of viewing the Indian- Pakistani conflict from 
an Islamic perspective. We have tried to "Islamise" the ongoing conflict in 
south Asia, posing as protectors of Islam and custodians of the international 
community. And we have overlooked the regional role of India, with Arab
leaders  showing up in New Delhi much less frequently than before.

Secondly, when India applied for membership of the Organisation of the 
Islamic Conference (OIC), the response was extraordinary. A country with 120 
million Muslim citizens applied to membership and what happened? Islamic 
countries, in typical naiveté, rejected the Indian application, imagining this  would
please Pakistan and teach India a lesson. The right thing to do, of  course,
would have been to co-opt this major country and give it OIC membership.  This
would have put the brakes on Indian rapprochement with Israel. An  Arab-Indian
rapprochement may have even alleviated, not increased, the pressure  on
Pakistan. Imparting a religious coating on a conflict between two  neighbouring
countries was a political misjudgement, and a sign of Arab  miscalculation.

Thirdly, India was close to the former Soviet Union and, as a major country 
of the Non-Aligned Movement, critical of US policies. That was during the Cold
War, but things have changed since then. India has forged close links with
the  US due to political as well as technological reasons. And its newly
acquired  superiority in ICT proves it knew what it was doing. India has also
succeeded in  replacing Pakistan as the US favourite country in the region. I
wouldn't be  surprised to see India assume the role of a policeman in the Indian
Ocean and  the outskirts of the Gulf, with US blessing and with the aim of
encircling  so-called Islamic violence. This would be in harmony with Israel's
agenda, and  it may pave the way to a scheme of joint control over the Greater
Middle East. 

Fourthly, Some Arab countries have pursued a balanced policy towards the 
conflict in south Asia. Under Gamal Abdel-Nasser, Egypt was so close to India 
that the latter had no motive to flirt with Israel. Back then, India was a 
staunch supporter of the Palestinian people, and I still remember that the 
Palestinian ambassador to New Delhi enjoyed the privilege of meeting the Indian 
prime minister at anytime he wished to do so. But as the Islamic phenomenon 
spread and some Arab policies acquired a religious tint, India grew visibly 
suspicious of the Arab and Islamic worlds. To make things worse, Arab diplomacy 
in India was lackadaisical over the past two decades.

Fifthly, the Indians are a practical and smart people, so are the Pakistanis.
It is advisable for us to maintain balanced relations with both. Both
countries  are nuclear powers and are highly regarded across the Arab world.

Having good  ties with both countries makes sense at these turbulent times.

We have lost India so far for no good reason, I should say. We have failed to
stay close to an industrially advanced state, one with nuclear and space 
capabilities. We have failed to do so although there is a clear ethnic 
resemblance between the Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, 
and the people in our Arab world. It is time we mend this error. It is time to 
bring Arab countries closer to both India and Pakistan, rather than take one 
side or keep our distance altogether. I believe the Arabs have only themselves 
to blame for India's change of heart on the Palestinian question. 

In early 2003, I was in New Delhi with a parliamentary delegation. It was my 
first to India in over 20 years. I met the Indian national security adviser,
who  is a veteran politician, and he told me his country, despite its close
links  with Israel, is committed to legitimate Palestinian rights. Such attitude
is  encouraging, and it makes me think that the Arab League, whose current 
secretary-general was once an ambassador to India, should start a coordinated 
effort to improve Arab links with India. We need to bring back the balance to 
our policy and revive the old friendship, while maintaining our close bonds
with  Pakistan.

Some people have taken issue with what I mentioned about the need to 
integrate the Arab mindset into the current global mindset. They called my 
assertion an assault on local identity and a sabotage of the pan-Arab character. 
I still believe that this is a responsible way of addressing our problems, that 
this is the way forward in the context of comprehensive reform -- the reform 
that countries in this region seek, the reform that emanates from their own 
fabric and expresses their own resolve. We must distinguish between two things. 

One is comprehensive revision, which makes transformation a part of reform.
The  other is uncalculated compromises that lead to a general sense of
capitulation  of other people's wishes. Only the latter I am against.

International isolation  is impossible. Let me say this loud and clear. This is what history tells us,  this is the spirit of the age, and this is how things are.

<i>* The writer is chairman of parliament's Foreign Affairs  Committee.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->