• Wednesday, December 11, 2019

The Arab World Backstab

Discussion in 'Indian Defence Forum' started by kaku1, Oct 2, 2014.

  1. kaku1

    kaku1 BANNED

    Messages:
    3,758
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Ratings:
    +2 / 2,839 / -5
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    # I really amazed this was arab world backstab or its India's failure to identify its true allies. From the last 50 years when the Isreal was opening its hands for India, then why we were closing ours in Past.

    The India-Israel Alliance – Part I: The Arab World’s Betrayal (from pre-independence to 1992)


    India-Israel relations have advanced rapidly over the last twenty-one years. Israel, today, is India’s second largest arms supplier while India is Israel’s eighth largest trading partner — with exponentially increasing military collaboration and ever expanding trade relations in a whole host of sectors.


    However, during its first forty five years modern India preferred to maintain strong ties with the Arab world and, later, Iran, at the expense of its relationship with Israel. What explains India’s past diplomatic hostility to the Jewish state, viewed by many as India’s natural ally?


    A DIVISION BORN OF PARTISANSHIP, MISINFORMATION AND RIGID MORAL COMMITMENT

    The Indian National Congress (INC) party dominated India’s freedom struggle against the British since the early twentieth century. Opposed to the partition of the subcontinent on religious (Hindu/Muslim) lines, it tried to appease Muslim favour against the rising popularity of the audaciously anti-Zionist, pro-partition Muslim League (ML) by adopting a moderately similar opposition to Jewish nationalism. Furthermore, while opposing sectarian division at home, it couldn’t possibly justify it in the Mandate while criticizing the ML for its exclusivist notions.

    In the aftermath of World War I, and the subsequent British occupation of the lands of the former Ottoman Empire, Muslims in British India launched a powerful political protest campaign called the Khilafat Movement (KM) to influence the British government to protect the Ottoman Caliphate. It became a very important faction within the Indian independence movement. The KM, as is evident from the name, was radically opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Ottoman lands. The Caliphate was abolished by Ataturk in 1924 rendering the Khilafat Movement useless. It disintegrated on political lines. The ML’s rabid anti-Zionism enticed many former members of the KM. To stymie the loss of such an influential and powerful vote bank to the ML, and therefore see India partitioned, the INC hardened its opposition to Zionism. This appeasement effort ended in abject failure as India was eventually partitioned.

    Also, the INC’s political views drew from the philosophies of Gandhi, the admirable poster child of non-violent resistance, who assumed leadership in 1921. Gandhi, himself, was a soft critic of the Zionist movement. His view was based on the distortion that the movement was perpetuating the continued, millennia-old Jewish presence in what was then the British Mandate by “imposing itself” on the locals. He urged that the Jews settle there by means of peaceful defiance (Satyagraha) that
    he successfully employed against the British. He also STRONGLY condemned the mass Arab violence on the Jewish communities. Furthermore, his acceptance of conspiracy theories about “Zionist-British-American collaboration” cemented his outlook about Zionism — that it was a form of the very same colonialism he was fighting — leading to sympathetic leanings towards the Arabs. Being the influential figure that Gandhi was, naturally this view got standardized within the ranks of the party.

    This over-principled, ideological commitment to fighting what it falsely perceived as colonialism set the tone for the INC’s outlook over the decades, starting with India’s vote against the UN Partition Plan in November 1947, while only six months prior, favouring the minority plan at the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) — which recommended a federation of an Arab and Jewish state. India also opposed Israel’s UN membership in May 1949. After much lobbying effort, and as retribution for Egypt’s Farouk voting in favour of Pakistan on the Hyderabad issue at the UN in 1948, New Delhi accorded official recognition to Israel in late 1950. The establishment of formal ties was put off until 1992.

    From the very beginning, India strongly backed Arab causes in the international arena, as was evident from the stand taken by Indian representatives and delegations to the UN over the years. One issue that was on the forefront of India’s pro-Arab agenda was that of the Arab “refugees” from all the wars waged against Israel. India extended consistent support to all efforts aimed at providing immediate relief and permanent absorption of the Palestinian refugees into Arab countries, although, in principle, it didn’t agree with the idea of absorption.

    HOWEVER, India’s support has been with FULL acceptance of the reality of Israel’s existence, without giving in to the maximalist demands of the Arab bloc, the total annihilation of Israel.

    Also, it is important to note that India’s radical support for the Palestinian and other pro-Arab causes was never reciprocated by the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world on the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir since the very beginning. The Arabs’ — especially the Palestinians’ — religious loyalties ensured that Pakistan always had their firm backing. This was predicted by many since 1951, the year in which the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hussam ad-Din Jarallah, became a staunch defender of Pakistani claims to Kashmir after visiting Pakistan that year. But yet India’s zealous, albeit naive, pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian stance continued until the early 1990s.

    On many occasions, in the early 1950s, Nehru was prepared to normalize relations with Israel, but bigger, more pressing concerns in the subcontinent either deterred or discouraged India from going down that path, as I will examine in this piece.

    PAKISTAN, THE USA, THE USSR AND CHINA

    Enter the primary agent that affected the course of India-Israel relations — Pakistan. The long and drawn out Kashmir conflict — which began in 1947, immediately after Pakistan sought to forcefully acquire the legally annexed Indian territory of Jammu & Kashmir — has always dominated the Indian political discourse.

    Religious loyalties ensured both popular support and unquestioning diplomatic backing for Pakistan from the Arab world. Recognising that opposition to Israel was a pan-Arabian cause, India took up a pro-Arab stance in order to placate Arab and Muslim opinion on the Kashmir issue.

    Pakistan’s proximity to the USSR, and its internal struggles against the rise of Communism in both West and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), made it an attractive Cold War proxy for the US. It became the beneficiary of massive American military and economic aid, risking a tilt in the balance of regional power. An example of the increasing collaboration was the establishment of a spy operations station at the military base in Peshawar, for coordinating secret signal flights to gather intelligence on the Soviet Union’s ICBMs, under President Eisenhower, in 1956.

    Pakistan’s growing military cooperation with another hostile enemy, China, was also worrisome to both New Delhi and Moscow.

    After a period of initial reluctance and much deliberation, as a safeguard against the growing military threat in its backyard, India established a warm and enduring military, trade and diplomatic nexus with the Soviet Union.

    Although the Soviets stayed neutral during the Sino-Indian border dispute of 1959 and the war of 1962 – angering Beijing — by the mid-1960s, India had received more Soviet assistance than China had, much to the latter’s chagrin.

    In 1962, the Soviets agreed to transfer technology to co-produce MiG-21s in India, which they had earlier denied Beijing. This disparity — along with many other incidents of India receiving preferential treatment over China — was Moscow’s way of chastising the Chinese for their dealings with Pakistan, an American front.

    Thanks to the Soviets, the balance of power was immovably shifted in India’s favour, however, that entailed embracing — or at least acceding to — the Kremlin’s West Asia policies which robustly favoured the Arabs post-1955, after over a decade of support for the Zionist movement.

    Not to mention, the Communist bloc claimed to be the guardian of the third-world and the champion of the opposition to what it falsely promulgated was “Western Imperialism”. Their pitching of Communism as an emancipatory, anti-Colonial creed made the USSR all the more attractive to India, a country who only recently shook-off the yoke of British Imperialism.

    Thus, although originally unintended, the USSR became the perfect ally to India, both practically, by providing a sturdy counter-balance to the growing US-Pakistan-China collaboration, and ideologically, as mentioned in the above paragraph.

    THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT (NAM)

    India’s openly pro-Arab stance was furthered with advent of the Cold War and its ascension into the Non-Aligned movement (visualized at the Bandung Conference of 1955). Among its founders were Nasser of Egypt and Nehru of India. Strong relations between India and Egypt followed, as also the championing of its newfound allies’ causes in the international arena. In spite of diplomat (and later, Defence Minister) Krishna Menon’s insistence, so as to court Arab favour, Nehru blocked Israel’s inclusion in the NAM.

    AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY (1950-1984)

    In the decade after Independence, during the Sinai conflict of 1956, India’s hypersensitivity to Colonialism flared up — invigorated by its growing alliance with Egypt. After Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, then Prime Minister, Nehru, supported Nasser publicly. Urging Nasser privately to show restraint and warning him of consequences, Nehru sought to intervene and negotiate a peaceful solution — hoping to safeguard international interests, while respecting Egypt‘s sovereign rights.

    However, because Israel collaborated with the UK and France (still perceived as colonial powers) Nehru reacted sharply and described the event bluntly as “a flagrant case of aggression” and “a reversion to past colonial methods”. He even threatened to withdraw India from the Commonwealth.

    Relations deteriorated further all through the 1960s, even after Nehru’s death in 1964. Examples – India’s refusal to accept Israeli assistance in redeveloping the barren wastelands of Rajasthan, and the outright decline of famine relief offered by Israel in response to UN Secretary General U Thant’s plea, among many others incidents.

    The one sidedness of India’s pro-Arab bent started to show very early on. During the Sino-Indian war of 1962, and the India-Pakistan war of 1965, Egypt took an extremely neutral stance. The rest of the Arab world overwhelmingly supported Pakistan. Undaunted, India kept pushing in a pro-Arab direction.

    In 1967, during the aftermath of the Six Day War, India strongly condemned Israel for what it perceived as “the Israeli invasion of Arab lands of Palestine”. In October 1967, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi visited Cairo, she issued a joint India-UAR statement expressing support for “the just rights of the Palestinian people”. Thanks to Indira Gandhi, India became complicit in legitimising the fabricated “Palestinian” identity, as India was one of the first non-Arab countries to recognise it.

    D.P. Dhar, a member of the Indian delegation to the UN Special Political Committee, in December 1967, reiterated the Indian position, which fully recognized the “Palestinians” as a people and not merely as refugees. It also emphasized the need for a “lasting solution” to “ensure the just rights of the Arab people of Palestine” on the basis of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

    This angered many at home. Fervent popular opposition to the Indian government’s pro-Arab stance emerged — in political circles, the press, and the population in general.

    The next disappointment from the Arab world came in 1969, when on Pakistani military dictator Yahya Khan’s insistence, India was barred from the Rabat conference of Islamic leaders — convened in response to the burning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem by deranged Australian Christian Evangelical, Denis Michael Rohan.

    Furthermore, on Pakistan’s instigation, the meeting also condemned the communal riots (between Hindus and Muslims) that took place in Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat, further weakening India’s standing in the Arab world.

    As a reaction, India recalled its senior envoys from Morocco and Jordan. Indian Foreign Affairs Minister, Dinesh Singh, held a meeting in New York with his Israeli counterpart, Abba Eban, as a first sign of improving relations with Israel.

    The Rabat conference was the birthplace of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which thanks to Pakistan’s fervent persuasion, has always excluded India. Islamabad had free, unrestricted access to solicit support in the halls of the OIC and used the forum to produce strident resolutions against India –- fiercely reaffirming the Muslim world’s backing.

    What really enraged the INC’s opposition at this point, was that in spite of these happenings: (1) India warmly welcomed a PLO delegation in 1969, to whom Foreign Minister Dinesh Singh assured the opening of a PLO office in New Delhi and offered a sum of INR 80,000, and (2) Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh assured the opening of a PLO information centre in New Delhi in 1970. (The latter didn’t materialize because of the PLO conflict in Jordan in September that year, on which India decided to stay neutral as it had cordial relations with both Arab parties.)

    Further disappointments would follow during the India-Pakistan war of 1971 which resulted in the independence of Bangladesh (East Pakistan then). Egypt and Syria stayed neutral while Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia condemned India. In spite of gaining regional superiority India’s position took a downward spiral in West Asia. Surprisingly, Israel sided with India and criticized Pakistan’s actions in East Bengal, especially the mass-murder of Bangladeshi Hindus. The intense speculation, that Israel heavily aided India in the conflict by providing weaponry, training and intelligence, was eventually proven true. But India’s hostility to Israel continued unabated.

    In response to Chinese collaboration with Pakistan in the war India signed a treaty of friendship and co-operation with the USSR.

    (On a side note, General JFR Jacob, the leading commander of the Indian forces that fought this war to liberate the Islamic nation of Bangladesh –- which to this day considers Israel an illegal entity, with a complete trade and travel ban, which penalizes its citizens with serious jail time for even attempting to travel to Israel — was, himself, a Jew and an outspoken Zionist.)

    At this point, in spite of India’s steadfast support, frustration from the constant let downs by the Arab world was rapidly catalyzing in New Delhi. Kishan Kant, future Vice-President of India, then an INC member of Parliament, as a result of the Arabs’ cold-shoulder during the 1971 conflict, insisted on a radical reassessment of India’s foreign policy. He was completely disregarded by then Foreign Minister, Swaran Singh, who went one step further and blamed Israel for the “refugee crisis”, demanding Israel to open its borders to the many Arabs who left in 1948 and 1967.

    Nothing was to be gained from that. To add insult to injury, with a great deal of funding and moral support from the Arab world, Pakistan began its nuclear program in the early 1970s — against the wishes of its allies, the US and China. (Pakistan’s nuclear program was intended to be a direct retaliation against India’s intervention that lead to to the loss of East Pakistan.)

    Yet, realizations about the futility of India’s pro-Arab stance didn’t spell action, as Pakistan –- now reinforced with the diplomatic and political might of the OIC — increased India’s already heavy dependence on Moscow, severely binding it to a rigid foreign policy platform.

    Little changed for Israel as India continued its support for Egypt in the Yom Kippur conflict of 1973. Much to the shock of the Western world, the unprovoked Syrian-Egyptian attack on Israel was praised by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, which had the audacity to blame the Jewish state for the war of annihilation waged against it.

    Although most of India’s oil imports were (and continue to be) from Iran, a significant proportion of its energy needs are fulfilled by the Gulf States. Also, a large number of Indians found work there during the 1970s in the booming oil industry, sending home huge remittances. Both of these factors strongly reinforced India’s fledgling economy, and a boycott or sanctions by these nations would have been disastrous — disallowing any divergence with regards Israel.

    India strongly backed the decade old PLO under Yasser Arafat, and its bid for UN observer status in 1974. It became the first non-Arab nation to extend formal diplomatic accreditation to the representatives of the PLO in January 1975. In the same year, a PLO office was set up in the nation’s capital, New Delhi. All hope was lost for Israel in 1975, when under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the INC’s age old mis-characterization of Zionism as colonialism resurfaced, and — at the behest of Moscow — India voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism.

    This led to severe discord and disenchantment with the INC in Indian politics. During the state of emergency declared by Indira Gandhi from 1975 to 1977, a new coalition called the Janata Party (JP) – comprised of several opposition factions — that proposed a radically divergent position on the Israel-Arab conflict emerged. Fervent indignation about India’s mistreatment of Israel would soon acquire a political platform.

    Unfortunately, by now, a framework of military, political and diplomatic dependence on the USSR was forged (remnants of which still exist today) to counter the increasingly threatening Chinese and American backed Pakistan. With Israel still a tiny player in the political arena, and only emerging as a US ally, ties with her would bring in a plethora of uncertainties, and few, if any, dividends.

    This handicap would manifest in 1977 with the election of the Janata Party, when –- aside from an incognito visit by then Foreign Minister, Moshe Dayan in August, which was only made public in 1981 by Indira Gandhi — little changed in spite of its vehement opposition to the government’s treatment of Israel while on the sidelines. To pre-emptively counter any efforts by India to diversify its relations, the Soviet Union proffered additional weaponry and economic assistance. Janata Party Prime Minister Morarji Desai, in his meeting with Dayan, did not accept Dayan’s rationale that creating a Palestinian state would endanger Israel, and rejected his proposal that Arab refugees from 1948 and 1967 be absorbed into the countries where they lived, just as Israel absorbed roughly a million Jewish refugees from Arab lands. He even refused to exchange ambassadors and dismissed Dayan’s proposal of allowing India’s Foreign Minster to visit Israel.

    In the same year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the leadership of future Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, issued a harsh condemnation of Israeli settlements. Despite its fiery election time rhetoric, India, under the Janata Party, in complete solidarity with the Arab world, opposed the Camp David Accords of 1978. In late 1979, the Indian National Council for Cultural Relations, jointly with the PLO, even organised a special cultural event named “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” in New Delhi.

    The dependence on Moscow was further exacerbated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, when the US –- in order to fight its arch-adversary, now, just next door — invested heavily in Pakistan, and by Islamabad’s foray into the NAM.

    In 1980, the INC, under Indira Gandhi, was re-elected, and support for the Arabs continued. Full diplomatic recognition was extended to the Office of the PLO in New Delhi. Arafat paid state visits to India in 1980 and 1982. During his 1980 visit, Arafat described India as an “eternal friend” and vowed to continue his “armed struggle” against Israel, which should have irked I. Gandhi, but it didn’t. The first ever joint India-PLO statement was issued in the same year, highlighting the close bond between the two leaders. The friendship was so strong that the PLO representative in New Delhi, Jamil Hajaj, even urged Indira Gandhi to intervene in the factional infighting in the PLO that began two years later, in November 1983, which she decided to stay away from.

    The Israeli intervention in Lebanon in 1982, to root out the PLO terrorists, invited the wrath of Indira Gandhi. In a speech at the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) in July 1982, she severely rebuked Israel’s security-guaranteeing actions. She even did the unthinkable : sent a message to Arafat in September that year, praising him wholeheartedly for his “spirited resistance” against Israel. The PLO Ambassador to India, Faisal Ahudaha, in his 1982 speech in Calcutta, said : “I can say that India has come to our aid even more than some of our closer neighbours.”

    More bad news for Israel followed when Yossef Hasseen, the Israeli consul, was expelled in 1982 for a controversial interview –- a sanction never meted out to even arch-enemies like Pakistan and China.

    However, this shameful behaviour on I. Gandhi’s part prompted a backlash from the opposition. The, now highly fragmented, Janata Party, attempted a resurgence. Although failing to deliver on Israel while in power, they now tried to shore up opposition support for Israel. JP member, Subramanian Swamy, became the first Indian political leader to make a publicized trip to Israel, where he met with important Israeli leaders such as Yitzhak Rabin and then Prime Minister Menachem Begin. His efforts, along with those of many other opposition leaders, at normalizing relations with Israel would eventually bear fruit in 1992. (Swamy is also well respected for his pioneering efforts in the normalization of relations with China.)

    EMBRACING REALITY – THE ERA OF PRAGMATISM (1984 onward)

    After Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984, a gradual shift in outlook began under her son Rajiv Gandhi, who became PM soon after. He was known for his non-ideological and pragmatic approach to foreign affairs. He made history by meeting with his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres at the UN General Assembly session of 1985.

    Although India criticized Israel’s air-raids on the PLO’s Tunis headquarters in 1985, and convened a meeting of the Non-Aligned Committee on Palestine in New Delhi in the same year, she openly rejected Arab demands to expel Israel from the UN.

    Fearing Islamabad’s reciprocation of Arab financial support for its nuclear program by sharing its technology with the donors, R. Gandhi even collaborated with Israel to launch an Osirak-style attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities at Kahuta (the strike didn’t materialize for fear of repercussions from the Arab world.) In 1986, in response to the flourishing diamond trade between the two countries, the Arab Boycott Office blacklisted several Indian diamond trading firms for their Israeli transactions.

    The 1987 indictment of India by the ADL, that was highly critical of New Delhi’s stance on Israel, is said to have influenced Gandhi’s policy making. R. Gandhi’s decision to host the 1987 Davis Cup quarter-final matchup against Israel, while not underscoring any dramatic changes, sparked a lively debate about the prolonged absence of diplomatic ties with Jerusalem. Normalization gained momentum after R. Gandhi visited the US and met with several Jewish leaders in 1988, including Morris Abrams, Malcolm Hoenlin and Congressman Stephen Solarz (a strong advocate of a powerful India-Israel-US nexus and Indian issues in the US Congress). Shortly thereafter, the Israeli representation was elevated to the pre-1982 position of consul. Visa regulations were relaxed.

    Not forgetting its commitment to the Arab cause, in the same year, India was the first non-Arab country to recognize the Palestinian state declared by the PNC in Tunisia, and, just before aforementioned visit to the US, R. Gandhi even visited Syria, where he was warmly greeted by President Hafez al-Assad, and reaffirmed India’s support for the Arab cause. In 1989, India hosted an ADL delegation and also Stephen Solarz.

    All of these high-profile meetings are said to have had a great deal of influence on Rajiv Gandhi’s softening-up on India’s traditional anti-Israel stance. Furthermore, with China and the USSR (India’s ideological mentor) increasing collaboration with Israel, while being outwardly critical of its actions during the First Intifada, India had no reason to cling on to unrewarding sentimental commitments.

    Palestinian violence during the First Intifada often rendered India’s moral support for Palestinian “resistance” difficult to justify and, as a result, some semblance of balance slowly crept in. The conflict was no longer viewed in zero sum terms. What was once referred to as the ‘Palestinian Liberation Struggle’ started accurately being labeled as ‘Palestinian TERRORISM’, a term rarely, if ever, used before in political circles.

    With the INC’s defeat in 1989, and the resultant shaky governments’ pre-occupation with domestic perils, relations plateaued over the next two years. The INC victory of 1991 under PV Narsimha Rao saw a return to the prior normalization efforts, and in January 1992, after almost half a century of alienation, history was made when India formally established relations with Israel –- only two months after voting to repeal the shameful 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism at the UN.

    BACKGROUND TO NORMALIZATION

    The belated acceptance of the following two realities, that should have been obvious at the very start, were among the primary reasons for India’s gradual shift in policy:

    No amount of deference to the Arab world would overpower its loyalties to Pakistan –- loyalties shaped by racism and religious supremacism.

    Zionism was the liberation movement of the Jewish people, not even remotely akin to colonialism, imperialism, or racism; Israel was not a colonial power.

    (The latter realisation sunk in only once India took off its pro-Soviet ideological blinders. I will expand on that topic in my next piece.)

    Other influential factors were the decline of the Soviet Union (accompanied by the emergence of the US as a sole super power and the forging of strong US-Israel relations), the growing influence of the Indian diaspora community in the US (and its effort to build bridges between the two countries), the de-jure change of the PLO strategy towards Israel, the start of the Middle East peace process, the emergence of radical Islamism as a potent political force in the middle east (and the subcontinent), the liberalization of the Indian economy, the emergence of a powerful, business oriented Indian middle class that recognized Israel’s potential as a trading partner, Pakistan backed Islamic terrorism in India, and a change in India’s domestic politics.

    CONCLUSION

    India’s post-independence political opportunism and diplomatic animus toward Israel did not stem from any religious or cultural pre-disposition. It was an over-conscientious expression of realpolitik — the act of what was then a fledgling, third world country confronted by some very powerful, well established, and hostile adversaries.

    While the INC catered to the country’s large Muslim population, its post-1947 opposition to Zionism was not entirely a result of domestic appeasement. Defending itself from the acute, foreign existential threats was the priority, and not pacifying a “vote bank”. Soviet propaganda, and the Soviets’ self-proclaimed front runner status in the opposition to what it preached was Western “Imperialism” also played an important part in enticing India into Moscow’s pro-Arab stable.

    Also, India’s policies were always in stark contrast to the sentiments of the overwhelming Hindu majority.

    India eventually came to realize, rightly, that its interests lie in a reordering of its diplomatic allegiances and a reorientation toward Israel and the US, as no amount of appeasement to the Arab world would trump its religious affiliation with Pakistan — affiliation that guaranteed ceaseless support for Pakistan. As former Egyptian ambassador to India, Mustafa El-Feki, very aptly noted, the Arab world erred in that it “Islamized” the South Asian conflict — posing as protectors and custodians of Islam. The deeply sectarian prejudices and bigotry behind its support for Pakistan -– ironically, the entity that prompted India’s original pro-Arab bent — cost it dearly, while working fully to Israel’s advantage.

    The year 1992 was the beginning of a new era.


    The India-Israel Alliance – Part I: The Arab World's Betrayal (from pre-independence to 1992) | Cliff Pinto | The Blogs | The Times of Israel
     
  2. Utkarsh

    Utkarsh BANNED

    Messages:
    357
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 219 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Its a very good article, though it paints only a certain aspect of the relationship. But Great information and history.

    In any case with the Modi govt. Indo-Israel partnership will grow towards its natural potential.
     
  3. The SC

    The SC ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    18,129
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Ratings:
    +18 / 18,605 / -0
    Country:
    Canada
    Location:
    Canada
    The Arab world is the biggest trade partner of India, with $160 billion a year!!!
    Even Egypt and Jordan two Arab countries have normalized relations with Usrael. So for India, normalizing its relations with Usrael benefits it with some American tech, the deals are not worth much, and the relationship is shaky most of the time, as India finds out how corrupt the Usraeli traders are, and their quick attempts at corrupting the Indian government and institutions far worst than it already is.Some of them were banned by the previous government, for going too far in their attempts. That is exactly what you usually get by courting Usrael and befriending it too closely. I won't be surprised if they take over control of Indian politics in the coming decades, after all they have taken control of bigger fish, like the EU and the US among others. We can see their media influence on Indian minds already by following some pro-Zionist Indian posts on PDF and elsewhere.
    Articles like this one, might be objective, but still much biased when they state that " Zionism was the liberation movement of the Jewish people, not even remotely akin to colonialism, imperialism, or racism; Israel was not a colonial power." to the contrary of what the world's population thinks. It is more politically motivated than factual or real.
    In brief, no Oil equates no India, Usrael can not provide the blood of the Indian economy, so how dare anyone say that the Arabs or Muslims have back-stabbed India,while India itself has back stabbed Iran and Arabs in the UN, many times and still do business with them.
    Diplomacy has apparently became a world of hypocrisy driving the world from its highest instances.
    As a conclusion, who really cares about India having a relationship with Usrael, who is a wh***, anyone can have what he wants in turn as long as he pays the price. No wonder they are running the biggest world prostitution rings and Have been for centuries. India can enjoy it too (they have places for Lesb** too as far as I know), since there is no jealousy in this matter as we all know.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2014
  4. Cheetah786

    Cheetah786 PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Ratings:
    +1 / 7,279 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Is that why they invest in Indian industry and finance terrorist in pakistan.
     
  5. kaku1

    kaku1 BANNED

    Messages:
    3,758
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Ratings:
    +2 / 2,839 / -5
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Part II: A Steady Forging of Ties (from 1992 to 2000)


    Here, I will further analyze the causes for India’s diplomatic shift and provide a timeline of key events in the changing relationship.


    [A] A DEEPER INSIGHT INTO THE CAUSES

    (1) BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER

    “What have the Arabs given us, if I may ask? Did they vote for us in the Kashmir issue? Were they supportive of us when we had the East Pakistan crisis (1971)?,” blasted J.N. Dixit, the foreign secretary of India – and Indian National Congress (INC) Party member – in a January 1992 interview, shortly after normalization with Israel.

    The eventual rapprochement with Israel was primarily because of the Arab world’s constant betrayal of India by its robust support for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue – in spite of New Delhi’s hardline backing of Arab causes (especially that of Palestine) in the international arena.

    The Palestinians themselves overwhelmingly favoured Pakistan over India. This was predicted by many, when starting 1951, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hussam ad-Din Jarallah, became a staunch defender of Pakistani claims to Kashmir after visiting Pakistan that year.

    Israel ALWAYS stood by India’s side on the Kashmir issue, even with New Delhi’s outright hostility.

    Dixit’s anger was reflective of the left-wing INC party’s frustration with the Arab world. No longer were grievances over a failed West Asia policy unique to the opposition.

    (2) THE IRAQI INVASION OF KUWAIT

    India, in the aftermath of Saddam Hussain’s forceful annexation of Kuwait in 1990, supported him until it could airlift the 150,000 or so Indians living in Kuwait. Soon after, India became critical of Iraq, even allowing American warplanes to refuel in Mumbai.

    Israel proved its worthiness as an ally, when, in spite of India’s diplomatic belligerence, she offered to transfer to Israel the thousands of Indians languishing in Jordan (after escaping Iraq) and fly them to India for free. The absence of ties caused various bureaucratic hurdles, and the help wasn’t accepted – exposing those stranded to hunger, rape, and theft, leading to a great deal of anger and debate against the INC’s policies.


    After supporting Saddam, the PLO and Yasser Arafat lost prestige tremendously in West Asia. Justifiably, Arafat was accused of treachery by the Kuwaitis. He was also shunned by the Gulf States who feared that they could be “next”.

    India was heavily dependent on the Gulf Emirates for energy and many economic benefits. To alleviate any anger over its initial support for Saddam, New Delhi distanced itself from the PLO, prioritizing the beneficial relationship with the Gulf over the unrewarding ideological pro-Palestinian espousal.

    (3) DECLINE OF THE SOVIET UNION

    This event had multiple outcomes:

    Erosion of ideological foundations From the outset, the mass-murderers of the Soviet Union were the self-appointed guardians of the oppressed, torch bearers of the opposition to what they foolishly insisted was Western “Imperialism.” This clever distortion, that Communism was an anti-Colonial, emancipatory creed, effectively enticed into the Soviet stable many third world countries, themselves victims of colonialism (including India) – resulting in a drastic re-alignment of these nations’ foreign policies.

    The post-1967 Soviet and Eastern Bloc acrimony towards Israel and the US reverberated across the post-colonial, non-aligned world, as this hostility represented progressive antagonism towards what the Soviets propagandized as Western-backed “Imperialism”.

    The USSR’s collapse obliterated theideological foundation of India’s anti-Israel and anti-American stance. With its doctrinal mentor normalizing relations with the Jewish State, India followed suit.

    Furthermore, the loss of a diplomatic and military godfather necessitated practicality. India could ill-afford being carried away by its hardline, utopia-seeking sentiments.

    Economic liberalisation – Witnessing the failure of Socialist practices world-over, India moved away from Soviet models of closed, rigid economic administration and governance. Liberalization reforms in the economic sphere prompted a globalized outlook, leading to drastic changes in New Delhi’s world view.

    This enabled the rise of a powerful, business-oriented middle class that yielded tremendous influence on their respective states’ policies. It saw immense trading potential in Israel, and had established a strong commercial bond since the decades of disaffection. Easing state control allowed regional governments to deal with Israel directly, without New Delhi’s interference. Because of these two factors, states such as Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa, and Punjab were among the first to forge strong ties with Israel in a host of non-defence sectors.

    A prominent Muslim journalist, Saeed Naqvi, an avid supporter of strong ties with Israel, all through the 1990s, wrote extensively about the benefits that would come with normalizing relations between the two nations.

    The Arab world’s tacit acceptance of Israel With the Arab world losing its super-power backing, sustaining a warlike atmosphere of perpetual hostility to the militarily superior Jewish state was impossible – prioritizing the use of petro-dollar backed propaganda and the diplomatic arena to continue its antipathy towards Jerusalem. The Madrid Middle-East Peace Conference of 1991 was a sign of the Arabs accepting, at the very least, the reality of Israel. India relented on its dogmatic hangover, stemming from its self-enforced, hardline Marxist ideals – ideals which were antithetical to its Hindu populace’s sentiments on Israel. In the late 1980s, Chidambaram Subramaniam (former INC cabinet member under PM Indira Gandhi) publicly asked: “Do we need to be more Arab than Egypt?”

    Besides, India’s eagerness to play a role in the peace process required embracing both sides. Even the PLO leadership was aware that the India-Israel bond was inevitable. During Prime Minister Narsimha Rao’s hosting of Yasser Arafat – only a few days prior to normalization with Israel in January 1992 – the latter gave his approval, albeit hesitantly.

    The rise of internal political opposition The Arab world’s constant double-crosses over Kashmir, coupled with the fact that the overwhelming majority of India’s Hindu population loathed its pro-Arab stance, led to the rise of political factions that preached a diametrically opposite West Asia policy. Many of the INC’s coalition partners – the Praja Socialist Party (PSP), the Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP), etc. – identified from the outset with Israel’s socialist movement (Mapai). Prioritizing domestic issues over foreign policy, they toed the party-line on Israel, mutedly expressing support for Israel and criticizing the INC. Also, the majority of the INC’s members were by now in favour of allying with Israel.

    Abandonment wasn’t a worry during the Cold War because the opposition was rigidly bound by Moscow’s anti-Israel foreign policy dictates. But post-1991, India was free to steer in whichever direction it chose. Establishing ties with Israel struck a popular, non-partisan chord and if the INC didn’t act, it risked a massive candidate exodus to the rising Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), that was strongly in favour or normalization with Israel. Defection was on the horizon.

    India’s quest for super-power backing Since even before 1991, the wealthy and influential Indian community in the US lobbied hard to bring India into the US’s stable. After the Soviet breakup, it urged White House policy-makers to overlook India’s Cold War animus. The East-Indian and Jewish communities in the US shared very cordial relations – the latter being a prominent role model for the former – providing impetus for the forging of a powerful India-US (and therefore, a powerful India-Israel) alliance. In collaboration with AIPAC,theAJC, and the ADL, Indo-Americans worked towards bringing India, the US, and Israel closer together. An important figure in these efforts is Madhav Das Nalapat.

    With the above-mentioned changes in the domestic political climate and a radical reshuffling of the global power structure, reconciliation was inevitable.

    (4) PAKISTAN

    Enter the one agent that has disproportionately clouded India’s overall foreign policy calculations since 1947.

    Barely a week after PV Narsimha Rao became the Prime Minister in 1991, Pakistan-backed Kashmiri militants kidnapped a group of Israelitourists, killing one. This compelled co-ordination with Israeli diplomats. Rao waived all restrictions on the Mumbai-based Israeli Consul, offering full co-operation in resolving the crisis. This event marked the beginning of many efforts on his part to bring the process to its logical conclusion, namely, the establishment of formal ties with the Jewish state in January 1992.

    Instrumental in that outcome was India’s Ambassador to the US, a Muslim gentleman named Abid Hussein, a staunch defender of Israel and the Jewish people, who actively sought to convince Rao that Israel would give the country a superior edge over Pakistan, and that an alliance with the Jewish state was indispensable to India’s long-term interests.

    As the Iron Curtain had fallen, the world’s attention was now focused on other, smaller conflicts. All eyes were on Kashmir.

    Fearing international repercussions, Pakistan could not resort to conventional warfare, nor could it give up on the dream of acquiring Kashmir. The White House’s approach to Pakistan didn’t deviate from that of the Cold War. It continued to expend huge amounts of financial aid, weaponry, and training to Pakistan, which passed on these generous gifts to radical Jihadist groups to launch in Kashmir the campaign its army could not. The paper trail to Islamabad’s involvement in terror was difficult to establish, allowing it to maintain a veneer of deniability, and being religious zealots, these Mujahideen groups had little to no financial interests, rendering terrorism the perfect weapon. To this day, the various Jihadi groups inside India, especially in Kashmir, are the “unofficial wing” of the Pakistani military.

    These Pakistan-backed militants, driven by messianic zeal, viciously terrorized the people of Kashmir (especially the Hindu population), and launched major attacks in India’s metropolitan cities, crippling the nation.

    (Example The 1993 multiple bomb blasts in Mumbai, that led to the massacre of 257 people and the grave injury of over 1400, masterminded by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in collaboration with Mumbai-based Muslim mafia figures Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, Ibrahim “Tiger” Memon, and many others, all of whom now live under Pakistani protection.)

    Furthermore, Islamabad had full diplomatic immunity thanks to the unquestioning support from the OIC, and American imperviousness to its activities.

    Because of this, India’s heavy dependence on Moscow for military and diplomatic support transcended the Cold War. Furthermore, India was far from being in the US’s or Israel’s good books and couldn’t risk jeopardizing existing relations while transitioning to new ones. She did not adopt an “either/or” strategy with regards to Israel and the Arab world; but rather, played a careful balancing act.

    Although Islamabad didn’t hope to annex Kashmir using terror-by-proxy, it hoped “to bleed India by a thousand cuts” and create the right circumstances to facilitate an easy acquisition. Chief among the long list of its objectives were/are the following:

    The ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus This would help Pakistan should the fate of Kashmir be decided via plebiscite. Kashmiri Hindus were brutally targeted over the next two decades (and to this day).

    Radicalizing the state’s Muslim population Pakistan used the heavy funding from its Arab and American benefactors to radicalize the state’s Muslim population by financing radical, separatist Islamist preachers and religious fundamentalist groups, thereby spreading religious fundamentalism and anti-Indian sentiment among Muslim Kashmiris.

    Weakening the Indian armed forces’ and Kashmiri law enforcement’s grip on the state Mass deaths of civilians and military/law enforcement personnel would lead to lawlessness and a weakened/decreased/demoralized military presence in the state. Not to mention, sow immense panic and chaos among civilians. This outcome would ensure an easy grab for the Pakistanis via the steady infiltration of its regular troops or the various Jihadist groups backed by Islamabad.

    Disrupting India’s, specifically, Kashmir’s economy Self-explanatory.

    Although Pakistan failed miserably in achieving these goals, it inflicted (and continues to inflict) severe damage on India, evidenced by the immense number of Indian civilian and military deaths, and also the tremendous economic loss.

    This situation was not unlike the one Israel faced in ALL parts of the country since the very beginning, reaffirming the rationale behind India’s natural brotherhood with Israel. Israel thrived in spite of these circumstances. It had mastered counter-terrorism and intelligence-gathering strategies and was a military superpower, providing further impetus to the popular support for a strong India-Israel bond in Indian political and civilian circles all throughout the 1990s.

    PERIOD OF RAPID TRANSITION (1991-2000)

    Establishment of ties saw no radical departure in New Delhi’s support for a two-state solution. However, its sentimental, ideological pledge to the Palestinian cause began to erode. Voting patterns at the UN and other international forums against the US and Israel didn’t diverge much, but India learned to bifurcate the establishment of strong bilateral ties from the complexities of the peace process. “Support” for the Palestinians slowly but surely began to shift wholly into the realm of verbal posturing.

    The fledgling relationship faced an incessant barrage of roadblocks, many critics voiced their opposition. One outcome of that was India’s refusal to sign a Civil Aviation Agreement with Israel in 1993. However, a slow but sure forging of ties was apparent.

    Opposition by radical left-wing and Islamist factions remained. However, in mainstream parties like the INC, opponents of normalization and expanding ties with Israel were from the dying (and increasingly irrelevant) breed of old-school, Soviet Union-worshipping, anti-Western, radical socialist ideologues who refused to take off their philosophical blinders. Decades of brainwashing with anti-Western, pro-Soviet propaganda rendered it difficult for them to adjust to new realities.

    Shortly after normalization, the deportation of Hamas militants in 1992 evoked nothing more than an acknowledgement from the INC government, as did the Hebron massacre by Kahanist, Baruch Goldstein.

    Diplomatic visits started soon. In May 1993, Shimon Peres, then Foreign Minister, visited India to discuss terrorism and India’s territorial integrity. He wholeheartedly supported India’s stand on Kashmir, stating: “We support fully and completely the territorial integrity of India and agree with the Shimla Agreement.”

    Prime Minister hopeful Arjun Singh of the INC, then Minister of Human Resources Development, himself a vociferous opponent of normalization, broke taboo and visited Israel in 1994. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the BJP Chief Minister of Rajasthan, also visited Israel that year.

    In 1995, Prime Ministerial candidates, HD Deve Gowda, Janata Dal Party Chief Minister of Karnataka, and LK Advani, leader of the BJP, visited Israel. Gowda, who was elected in 1996, hosted President Weizmann, who came with a 24-member business delegation, in December. Weizmann laid the foundation of the Israeli-Indian Research and Development Farm at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in Pusa near New Delhi. Soon after, Gowda met PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the Davos World Economic Forum summit. After these two meetings, trade expanded into a host of sectors – especially agriculture, water management and purification, scientific R&D, hi-tech, and foreign investment. The Israeli Air Force chief visited India in March 1995.

    Future President, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, a prominent scientist and one of the most pro-Israel voices in the country, visited the Jewish state in 1996, when he was the scientific advisor to the Defence Minister. Also, the Indian Air Force Chief, SK Sarin, visited Israel in July 1996.

    After 1991, Russian manufacturers were simply unable to keep up with India’s growing military needs the way the USSR had. The US wasn’t eager to forgive India’s Cold War affinity for Moscow. India looked to Israel for its military supplies.

    Israel’s expertise in Russian military equipment made it India’s primary partner in modernizing and upgrading its armed forces. While high- profile visits continued, the rapidly growing defence ties were, and continue to be, kept STRICTLY secret, with the occasional disclosure.

    These bilateral contacts and negotiations set the stage for rapidly growing collaboration on a wide range of issues such as counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation, avionics, radars, anti-missile systems, aircraft upgrading, etc

    The 1998 ascent to power of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition — whose foreign policy was extremely pro-Western and pro-America — with Atal Behari Vajpayee as PM, saw a further surge in ties, precisely as a result of the NDA’s pro-Western outlook.

    In response to India’s Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998, as expected, with the exception of Saddam’s Iraq, the Arab world and the OIC strongly condemned India’s actions, while being virtually silent on Pakistan’s nuclear tests only a few weeks later.

    There was speculation that Dr. Kalam, who played a pivotal organizational, technical, and political role in the tests, had visited Israel for technical assistance again in the months prior. This view, that India collaborated with Israel for the nuclear tests, was further cemented when, in the aftermath of these tests, the whole world came down on India like a ton of bricks, but Israel – although refusing to comment initially – stood strongly by India’s side. The US began imposing sanctions on India, which would have entailed:

    • Terminating assistance to India except for humanitarian aid. At the time, U.S. economic and humanitarian aid amounted to about $142 million a year.
    • Barring sales of certain defense and technology equipment.
    • Ending credit and credit guarantees to India.
    • Coercing international financial institutions to cease lending to India, which had borrowed about $1.5 billion from the World Bank in 1997.
    The US didn’t completely follow-up on these harsh sanctions, and many attributed this to Israel’s lobbying on India’s behalf in Washington. Thanks to Israel, India was spared the impending diplomatic and economic backlash, reaffirming its potential as a valuable strategic partner.

    India joined the UN peacekeeping operations in the Middle East and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in November 1998. The Indian army chief, VP Malik, made an official visit to Tel Aviv in March 1998.

    National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra made regular trips to Israel starting 1998, laying the groundwork for expanded cooperation in the military and intelligence spheres. Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee also visited Israel the same year. Continuing its commitment to the Palestinians, India hosted Arafat in April 1999.

    A major catalyst to the India-Israel alliance was the 1999 Kargil War. India’s desperate pleas for assistance were heeded almost immediately only by Israel, which supplied ordnance, laser-guided bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), etc. News sources like Jane’s Defense Weekly also reported that Israeli security and intelligence officers regularly visited the Kashmiri border to aid in intelligence gathering activities and training. All of this altered the course of the conflict in India’s favour and firmly forged Israel’s credibility and reliability as an ally. The Arab world’s unquestioning support for Pakistan in this conflict was hardly surprising.

    LK Advani, now the Home Minister, visited Israel again in 2000, as did Defence Minister Jaswant Singh. Both men continued on the path of traditional support for the Palestinian cause by meeting with Arafat on the same trip. Najma Heptullah, a Muslim INC member of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of Parliament) also visited Israel. A Knesset delegation led by Amnon Rubenstein visited India.

    The rapidly solidifying consensus on Israel became clear when Jyoti Basu, Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) Chief Minister of West Bengal, visited Israel with a 25-member delegation. He met with PM Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Soon after, West Bengal CPI-M leader, Somnath Chatterjee, went along with a huge business delegation to promote a host of research and investment opportunities. In turn, Shimon Peres, then the Minister for Regional Cooperation, visited India both in 2000 and 2001.

    With the outbreak of the Second Intifada, government officials issued very balanced public statements of criticism of both sides – supplying USD 50,000 worth of medical aid to the PLO. Ten years ago, any Israeli-Arab conflict would have led to harsh condemnations of the Jewish state and vociferous support for the Arabs. In addition, Arab insistence to re-establish Zionism as racism at the shameful Durban World Conference against Racism in 2001 was simply brushed aside by Indian leaders.

    During the Intifada, the hard left’s bonhomie with Israel ended but ONLY on the diplomatic front. Example — The hypocritical CPI-M reverted to its pre-1992 rhetorical harshness — grounded in conspiracy theories – but refused to break its economic collaboration with Israel in West Bengal, the state it ruled.

    [C] CONCLUSION

    With the USSR gone, India faced very unfamiliar and uncertain circumstances. It began weighing its West-Asia approach purely in terms of concrete national interests. The non-beneficial, emotional attachment to the Palestinians, steeped in idealism, began disintegrating. In short, principle began to yield some place to pragmatism.

    By 2000, the ideological commitment had drastically softened, reduced to a few symbolic gestures, minuscule financial donations, minimal collaboration in a few sectors with the PA, and strong lip service in the international arena. This provided a facade of “support” for the Arab/Palestinian cause, while the juicy deals took place behind the scenes. Under the INC, the Janata Dal and the BJP, criticism of Israel became very muted and balanced.

    Furthermore, India’s support for the Palestinian issue waned as it became inexorably clear that, aside from Saddam’s Iraq, the Arab world would not cease its steadfast support for Pakistan on Kashmir, despite India’s history of championing Palestinian/Arab causes.

    The expanding ties with Israel did not harm India’s standing with the Gulf states or with Iran. In fact, aside from Egyptian dictator Mubarak’s strong displeasure about India’s growing fondness for Israel, the Arab world, realizing what India had to offer, strengthened bilateral trade relations with New Delhi from 1992 onwards (even as it continued to aid Pakistan on many fronts). Iran, seeking to end its regional isolation, looked to New Delhi as a potential partner, saying nothing about the burgeoning alliance.

    Although the hard left’s romance with Israel was short lived in diplomatic terms, a broad consensus was reached in India, both on the left (even the hard left) and on the right, that Israel was an indispensable ally to India.

    The President of India (INC), KR Narayanan, in his 2000 speech in New Delhi to Israeli Ambassador David Aphek, spoke proudly about the burgeoning alliance with Israel, the tremendous potential of that relationship, and assured his full cooperation in further expansion of ties.

    The inevitability of a powerful India-Israel alliance was further cemented after 9/11, when the US initiated an anti-terrorism nexus with India and Israel, which I intend to cover in the next installment of this series.


    Read more: The India-Israel Alliance – Part II: A Steady Forging of Ties (from 1992 to 2000) | Cliff Pinto | The Blogs | The Times of Israel The India-Israel Alliance – Part II: A Steady Forging of Ties (from 1992 to 2000) | Cliff Pinto | The Blogs | The Times of Israel
     
  6. janon

    janon ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,895
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Ratings:
    +10 / 18,146 / -8
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Those terrorists were welcomed by and patronized by your own authorities as well. Zia and successive administrations welcomed them (and arab money) with open arms. From the POV of those Arabs, they were only catering to the demand that Pakistanis put forth to them.
     
  7. Cheetah786

    Cheetah786 PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Ratings:
    +1 / 7,279 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    No such thing as 'Muslim Brother'' exists, Pakistan economy was just doing fine and better then Indian economy at one point, till Uncle Zia ,decided to please his masters in Arab world.

    As far as leagues is concerned, pakistani business policies are much more open and investor friendly, then India and any other nation in the region.

    No one is denying that, but none the less, i stand corrected they invest in other nations industry while only invest in terrorism through out Muslim nations.
     
  8. Cheetah786

    Cheetah786 PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Ratings:
    +1 / 7,279 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Is that why you are on Pakistan forum, cause you dont care for Pakistanis.
     
  9. Cheetah786

    Cheetah786 PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Ratings:
    +1 / 7,279 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    My bad, may i suggest Gaviscon Acid reflux and Heart Burn.
     
  10. halupridol

    halupridol SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,647
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Ratings:
    +2 / 6,656 / -33
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    good read.
    look forward to part 3

    rantak 300 better
     
  11. Winchester

    Winchester SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,686
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Ratings:
    +6 / 5,723 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Expect this relationship to improve...Modi and Netanyahu are natural allies!
     
  12. al-Hasani

    al-Hasani ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    14,060
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Ratings:
    +52 / 25,134 / -11
    Country:
    Saudi Arabia
    Location:
    Denmark
    @kaku1

    I did not know that the 500 million or so Arabs from Morocco next to the Atlantic Ocean in the West to Oman in the East next to the Arabian Sea and Syria in the North next to the Mediterranean Sea and Comoros in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere in the South owed India anything.:lol:

    In fact you are one of the biggest importers of our immense natural riches such as oil, gas etc. while we import nothing of worth the other way around. Mostly cheap labour.

    Nor have any Arabs asked for India's help for anything. If we want to have good ties with Pakistan or Papua New Guinea is not the business of India.

    Nor do we care if you have ties with tiny Israel or not. Arabs and Jews, being neighbors, cousins (both Semites) and members of the Abrahamic family will one day or another find a solution. This Arab-Jewish animosity is something relatively new. Bound in territory and politics more than anything. First and foremost it's mostly a Palestinian-Israeli matter. To claim that this concerns an Arab in Morocco, Comoros, Oman or Mauritania is a bit farfetched other than the personal/religious aspect.

    We support Pakistan because they have proven to be a real ally something India is yet to do. Anyway that does not prevent Arab countries from having ties with India.

    @Cheetah786

    You should stop blaming Arabs or others for your country's failures and the failures of your leaderships. You have plenty of indigenous problems to look after that have nothing to do with Arabs or other Middle Eastern people. In fact I can spot some of the problems among your migrant communities in the GCC. So start working to solve them and we will try to do the same.
     
  13. axisofevil

    axisofevil SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,953
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,873 / -14


    Convenient. Now all Arabs from Oman to Morocco are united?


    Pakistan never proved to be an ally. The fact is your type will support a non Muslims country PERIOD. Its a fact, and we are well aware of it. I have seen and interacted with your type long enough in the US, to know what some really think and speak. You forget how rich India was for centuries and forget how we were beacon of light for the Islamic world for centuries. Dont fool yourself kid....


    As for India, dont worry we will rectify whatever needs to be solved. Like you said, the only reason the Arab world hasbeen able to progress better is due to your immense natural resources. YOu forget how wonderful India was before Islam arrived on the Sub continent....
     
  14. al-Hasani

    al-Hasani ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    14,060
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Ratings:
    +52 / 25,134 / -11
    Country:
    Saudi Arabia
    Location:
    Denmark
    What do you mean? Yes, they are united is in all of them being Arabs, adhering to Arab culture, speaking Arabic, being Arabs, being largely Muslims or believing in fellow Abrahamic religions, bordering each other (the entire Arab world is a connected landmass) and all have an fellow ancient Semitic pre-Islamic past that is several thousands upon thousands of years old. Since the first owns emerged in the world in the Arab world. Genetic tests confirm this.

    What are you talking about? Pakistan never proved to be an ally? Really? You need to read up on the close cooperation between KSA and Pakistan for instance.

    No, I will support allies and people who have helped me and my country. That they are Muslims are a bonus. Are you going to tell me now that most Indians would not support fellow Hindus rather than for instance Africans? If you say so you are lying. I see nothing wrong in this.

    You don't see me saying that Arabs should have no relations with India. My point is that we Arabs owe you nothing which your little article implies that we do for some absurd reasons.

    How rich? Like the ancient ME, cradle of civilization, was poor. Which beacon of the Islamic civilization? Are you kidding?

    LOL. You obviously don't know that the same Arab world is the cradle of civilization and was one of the richest areas of the world long before anyone had heard about oil or gas.

    You my friend have a lot of books to read.

    Start educating yourself about the ancient Incense Route - the first real international trade route long predating the Silk Road.

    Incense Route - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You are welcome.

    Also think about why the Arabian Sea is called the Arabian Sea and why the trading ties between the Arabian Peninsula and Pakistan (mostly) and Western India are 5000 years old. You seem not to know your own history.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2014
  15. axisofevil

    axisofevil SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,953
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,873 / -14



    You neglect the role India has played in making Arabs very rich since ancient times. We could have traded directly with Romans but instead allowed you Arabs to middle men an make a killing. We were not greedy even back then. We did not let a different religion blind us. In fact, Im from Kerala, the only foreign land where Islam came without the sword and found acceptance. It's testament to the culture of my ppl.



    As for the Arabian sea issue, have you forgotten the INDIAN OCEAN?

    The Arabian Sea is a region of the northern Indian Ocean bounded on the north by Pakistan and Iran, on the southwest by northeastern Somalia, on the east by India, and on the west by the Arabian Peninsula. Some of the ancient names of this body of water include Sindhu Sagar (meaning "Sea of Sindh" in Sanskrit)[1] and Erythraean Sea.


    The Arabian Sea historically and geographically has been referred to by many different names by Arab travelers and European geographers, that include[4] Sindhu Sagar, Erythraean Sea, Sindh Sea, and Akhzar Sea.

    Never forget who yields the most influence in the world, it is Europeans.




    Pakistan and Afghanistan has always been HINDU LAND FOR 5000 yrs. Believe me, I know my history quite well. You forget when Arabs conquered Persia, they tried to conquer Afghanistan which was Hindu and Buddhist at the time. The Arabs were completely routed in the Scindh, by a Hindu King.



    DNA may make it seem as if you are all related just like we are all humans but most nations in the Middle east and elsehwere have their differences.



    I see the Incense route link. Its correct. Indian along with the Middle East was an integral part of this trade route. Our histories are interwined.



    Our issue is your blind support for Pakistan and the funding for terror that comes from your countries. You get upset when we have to strike hard against Muslim extremists but say nothing when such muslims commit horrific crimes.


    KSA and Pakistan is a marriage of convenience. Its all about Nukes and how to counter Shia Iran buddy. Don't kid yourself.


    Really. For someone who boasts how educated you are, you seem to lack some rudimentary comprehension of what India has done for the Middle East and Arabs. We have done more than your kind has done for us. Mughals represented one of the golden eras of Islam. The utnold wealth and riches made Europeans go nuts. Colombus wasn;t looking for a route to the Arabia but to INDIA.


    WHo do you think built up the UAE when it was a desert and nobody wanted to set foot there?



    You forget how Hindu science and math is what helped pushed Islamic science. Hindus who were forced to concert or enslaved were the ones who taught your ppl our knowledge.


    You're quite foolish....maybe you need to start reading a better list of books....I can give you some titles if you are interested.



    YOu talka bout Indians supporting Hindus over Africans.....well I got news for you. They wouldn;t. That's the problem with your type. I said something you dont want to fail and you automatically call me a liar. India is a democracy not a Muslims country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We repsect all religions. Just look into the type of help India does for Africans from tele health to education. Every African I have ever met, were always positive about Indians. Food for thought....