Stuck in the Muddle East

The Palestinian had taken advantage of the veil of silence New Delhi had thrown around his visit by not only getting his own message across, but also by happily amplifying on a one-liner put out by the MEA on its support to the Palestinian cause.

It was actually left to Sha8217;ath to point out, a week before Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon arrives on a breakthrough visit here, that there were some interesting shades of grey in India8217;s policy on the Middle East. Even as it called for an 8216;8216;end to the occupation8217;8217; of Palestine, New Delhi had studiously refrained from describing the Israeli presence as an 8216;8216;occupation8217;8217;.

But publicly, despite all its claims and pretensions to nuclear power status, the foreign office were hardly able to go beyond restating tired old-lines 8216;8216;Palestine remains a traditional ally of India8217;8217; or that India continued to support the UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 on Palestine.

At one point during the Sha8217;ath visit last week it began to look as if New Delhi was actually guilty about inviting Sharon to India. Of course that wasn8217;t 8212; isn8217;t 8212; true. In a reinvented world order, where the Palestinians are themselves insisting on picking up the pieces of peace with Tel Aviv 8212; even as both protagonists vow to abide by the guiding light of American President George Bush8217;s grand vision 8212; New Delhi seems determined to give Ariel Sharon a visit next week he will remember us by. Since the Congress government in 1992 under P.V. Narasimha Rao established full diplomatic relations with Israel, every government in New Delhi has pursued multi-dimensional ties with Tel Aviv.

Under Atal Bihari Vajpayee8217;s reign, the relationship has certainly taken on a definite sparkle, just like that bottle of special wine you hope will imbibe at least some of the flavour of the intervening years.

In any case, how can India be ashamed of the tradition of welcome and tolerance it has crystallised into a USP over the centuries? It8217;s not only political correctness to reiterate that among the first Jews who set out from their own motherland in their weather-beaten dhows were those who arrived on the Malabar coast in 69 AD, some say along with one of the chief disciples of Christ. There have been others since, seeking both refuge and conquest, compassion and mammon. The Parsis fled persecution in Persia, that itinerant prince from the Ferghana valley came to avenge filial disloyalty 8212; and stayed on to build an empire. The scriptures have taught us 8216;8216;atithi devo bhava8217;8217;, that the guest is like God.

Not to invite Sharon, therefore, because he has the blood of Sabra and Shatila massacres on his hands, perhaps makes complete sense to a committed idealist. For governments, far too gone in the business of pragmatism and self-interest, however, it8217;s more than a futile argument. After all, and it8217;s been said before, New Delhi invited Musharraf barely two years after we were still mourning the Kargil dead, and look what a reception the Indian elite gave him. According to one school of thought, Sharon must be welcomed because his country gives India some of the weapons to battle a terrorism that doesn8217;t recognise borders.

Invite them both, then, the Palestinian Abu Mazen and the Israeli Ariel Sharon. Perhaps they can both take lessons from India8217;s anarchic democracy 8212; even though one strain is currently called Narendra Modi 8212; and learn to listen to each other. Both would then have an equal shot at Vajpayee8217;s cabinet. And wonders would never cease.