The Gaza evasion

India’s government is cowering behind the BRICS position on the conflict

Written by Mani Shankar Aiyar | Updated: July 23, 2014 8:32 am
Hamas has no army, navy or air force. Its port has been blockaded, its solitary airport dismantled. (Source: Reuters) Hamas has no army, navy or air force. Its port has been blockaded, its solitary airport dismantled. (Source: Reuters)

Next only to South Asia, West Asia matters most to us in foreign policy. It is where nearly eight lakh expatriate workers are making their living. It is from their remittances, constituting more than half of our total foreign exchange earnings, that we get the wherewithal to buy arms from Israel. Their safety is crucially dependent on the Arab goodwill that we have patiently built with Arab and Iranian regimes, monarchist or republican, revolutionary or Islamist. The region is the second or third most important destination for our exports. And it is from there that we source 70 per cent of our oil imports.

The issue that most unites the otherwise fractious nations of West Asia and Iran is Israel. It is in this respect that, owing to the immense foresight and sheer goodness of Jawaharlal Nehru, we made what till recently was an indelible mark on the West Asian and Iranian consciousness. Gandhiji set the tone with his celebrated remark in 1938, “Palestine belongs to the Palestinians as England belongs to the English and France to the French”.
In keeping with that, but recognising that Palestine was also home to a large and growing number of Jews, Nehru invited both Palestinian and Zionist representatives to the Asian Relations Conference in March 1947.
Inevitably, the two clashed, and it was left to Nehru to bring them together. The audience burst into thunderous applause when the heads of the two delegations shook hands.

In keeping with that spirit, India played a leading role in the two committees set up by the UN to consider the future of Palestine at the termination of the British mandate. While the West and the Soviet Union were united in their demand that Palestine be partitioned to create a sovereign homeland for the Jews, India, itself under the shadow of a looming, blood-soaked Partition, took the lead in arguing for a single federal state in which there would be two autonomous Jewish and Arab regions, but with a common central government democratically elected by all the citizens of a common state. To begin with, it looked as if the Indian formula would work as a compromise between the two diametrically opposed positions taken by the Arab states and the Zionists, but slowly, as pressure on the smaller states mounted from the major powers, they moved to the other side and Palestine was ultimately partitioned. The consequences have been more far-reaching and far more prolonged than was the case with the partitioning of India. But every dire prophecy of the Indian delegation has been more than tragically fulfilled, with terrible human consequences over the last 67 years.

The alternative two-state solution has been proposed but is far from being realised. Israel, with all the cards in its hands, has encroached so far into Palestinian territory as to have reversed the shares originally intended, from 95 per cent for the Arabs and 5 per cent for the Jews to 95 per cent for Israel and 5 per cent for Palestine, that too a Palestine split into a series of Bantustans and divided by Israeli territory between the West Bank and the Gaza strip, besides being peppered with illegal Israeli settlements. For a moment in 1992, the Palestinians (but not the brilliant chief negotiator, Hanan Ashrawi) were befooled into believing that the Oslo process had handed them the state of Palestine on a platter. When I then argued that it was not a state but merely panchayati raj in Gaza, I was accused of trying to be more Arab than the Arabs. But ultimately the truth dawned, and the Palestinians realised they had been tricked into returning from Tunisia to Gaza, where they were locked up and effectively isolated from the world.

Not wishing to be more Arab than the Arabs, P.V. Narasimha Rao decided the moment had come to upgrade relations with Israel to full diplomatic level. Since then, and particularly after Israel supplied the shells we needed to fire our Bofors guns in the Kargil war, relations with Israel have boomed while those with the Arab world have slid to now hit rock bottom.
How rock bottom was revealed in Narendra Modi’s performance at Fortaleza. His intervention on the merciless aerial bombing and ground assault by the Israelis on Gaza was limited to three sentences. First, he said, he was “concerned” at the ongoing “conflict”. Concerned, not outraged? Earlier, his foreign office spokesman had equated Israel with Hamas, overlooking the hundreds of Palestinian innocents, now nearing 600, that were and are being killed, whereas the retaliatory Hamas rocket attacks have killed much fewer Israelis. Moreover, Hamas has no army, navy or air force. Its port has been blockaded, its solitary airport dismantled. The only way out is underground tunnels; so the Israelis slaughter those who live above the tunnels. How can Hamas’s military capabilities be compared to those of Israel? Yet, from Modi, no condemnation, no harsh words, just mere “concern” over the one-sided ongoing massacre.

His second sentence is brief to the point of abruptness, “We support a negotiated solution”. But who broke off negotiations last year just when they were coming to fruition? Israel. And why? Because Hamas and Fatah had buried their differences and come together. In a classic divide and rule manoeuvre, Israel walked out of the peace talks and refuses to come back so long as Hamas sits at the table. Surely, therefore, the line on “negotiated solutions” should be addressed to Israel first. And for negotiations to commence, surely aggression and the killing of the lambs has to stop. Who is presiding over this slaughterhouse? Israel, of course. And therefore, whose responsibility is it that the butchery be ended? Israel’s, of course. But Modi has nothing to say about a ceasefire as the necessary precondition for negotiations to be resumed.

Third, Modi said a negotiated solution would “inspire hope and confidence” the world over. That’s all very well, but surely the cat to be belled is Israel. Let them cease fire on the condition that talks are resumed — and the talks will be resumed. But a ceasefire without talks is the road to nowhere. And although Israel claims to be prepared to cease fire, it is not ready to negotiate unless Fatah dissolves its newfound ties with Hamas.

Finally, what of the BRICS? Paragraph 38 of the Fortaleza Declaration blabbers on and on about Palestine, but it neither condemns Israel nor calls for a ceasefire. Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj take convenient cover behind that. In doing so, they forget Nehru who, referring to the problems we had had in the Palestine committees, said in the Constituent Assembly on December 4, 1947: “Inevitably that means we have to plough a lonely furrow”. But he added, “Nonetheless, that is the only honourable and right position by which we shall ultimately gain national and international prestige”. Modi and Swaraj cowering behind the BRICS position is not an edifying sight. The BJP has betrayed its own clarion call in its manifesto of giving us an independent voice in international fora.

The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP from the Congress
express@expressindia.com

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. A
    Akshay
    Oct 16, 2016 at 9:57 am
    Arab countries always supported stan based on sunni sentiments. Israel is Our best friend, who has been helping us at agricultural technology, military Equipment technology. We can not support "The Womb of terrorism - Palestine" . We can never. India always in support who wants growth. And always against those who feed terrorist. Whats difference between Palestinian and Masood azahar? lt;br/gt;I think people like Mani Shankar aiyar should Think more of indian interest then Islamic interestdia is facing the same Sunni terrorism that Israel is facing.
    Reply
  2. A
    Anonymous
    Jul 23, 2014 at 11:50 am
    Let us resolve India's problems first and then worry about meddling elsewhere . mani can always pontificate from his high office since he will never had to deal with the realities
    Reply
  3. M
    manohar sharma
    Jul 23, 2014 at 4:31 am
    It is my bad luck that the 'foresight and goodness' of Jawahar Lal Nehru was only being focussed in West Asia and left Kashmir for which the country is paying the price till today.And for how long will it last,nobody knows.May I request our bright,intelligent and knowledgeable people to please concentrate and help solve our domestic issues so that Indians can live in peace.Provably they will then prosper and be counted so that world peers will listen to their voice.Today when China makes a move the world takes notice.
    Reply
  4. S
    stuka
    Jul 23, 2014 at 3:24 pm
    Uncleji, pls stop living out the stereotype of a Tam Brahmin by continuously pontificating about matters where you have no relevance. Modi has one mandate, and one mandate only- improve the economic conditions of India by increasing growth and creating jobs.That's it. For rich bungalow resides like you, Gaza is something you can discuss over Gin and Tonic at Delhi Gymkhana Club or India International Center.All we care about is growth and development in India, and a policy of non-interference in foreign affairs that do not impact us. All we have to learn from Nehru is how not to run a country - trying to solve problems for the rest of the world while subjecting India to Hindu rate of growth and military defeat by China.
    Reply
  5. J
    JaiHo
    Jul 25, 2014 at 6:44 am
    Why does not the great humanitarian like Aiyyar not shed any tears for hindus who were and are still being macred in stan and Bangladesh? His tears only seem to rock and roll for muzzlimz.... Aiyyar should be admitted to a mental hospital ... May be he was abused by his father as a child... That is why he hates people of his own kind...
    Reply
  6. N
    Ninad
    Jul 23, 2014 at 3:04 pm
    The tone and tenor of the comments show that the purve by Mani 'Foulmouth" Iyer has few takers.The readers are clearly aware that the gameplan of Hamas is to maximise civilian casualties in the holy month of Ramadan to garner sympathy. The refusal to accept cease fire, firing rockets in Israel to provoke them, stockpiling rockets in hospitals, hiding in civilian areas using women and children as human shields have been noted by the lay reader.This Nehruvian-Marxist fossil, this shameless lackey of the dynasty should be sent to Gaza. The Hamas will be delighted to have him.
    Reply
  7. A
    Adityq
    Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 am
    While we agree that Indian position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has changed as compared to what was then at the time of our Independence but there's also a fact that then the pressure of Parion was looming around hence our politicians had taken a stand against Two nation Theory but continuing with that stand till today is not in our favorAs we also have accepted stan as a state that was founded based on religious groundsSo whats wrong if we have changed our position with respect to the israeli-palestine issue now
    Reply
  8. T
    the rock
    Jul 24, 2014 at 5:45 am
    .He should be sent to stan where he has more friends than in India.
    Reply
  9. Load More Comments