UPA's West Asia policy hostage to ‘Muslim vote' :WIKI

[gulte]

Why should India be in the OIC ?

That i don't know, but there is only one thing that can be deducted from their demand on holding plebiscite in Kashmir.

 

[desioptimist]

Domestic constraints influence foreign policy of all countries, not specific to India. But the important factor in decision has always been India's interest.
But I dont think UPA govt foreign policy is influenced by muslim vote bank.
Otherwise we wont be having strong defense ties with Israel.
Hoever, if you see UPA govt track record, it is decidedly more pro american than NDA was.
Our relation with IRAN is not what it was before, but with soudis(american allies) has improved.

 

[EjazR]

@Karthic Sri

Mulford here claims that UPA's policy is "gutless" and "lacks moral clarity".

Think with a clear mind now. He is only talking about India's policy on not supporting US/ISraeli positions to the hilt. Is that a valid description?

Is it not that the US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "gutless" and "lacks moral clarity" when in the recent vote on declaring Israeli settlements illegal- a stand well known under International law, accepted by the UN and almost verbatim from Hillary Clinton's stand on settlement was vetoed? Is that not lacking in moral character?

India's position on Israel-Palestine is very quitest. It criticized the Gaza war only after almost the entire world criticized it and even then it was very mild. It has not been the first to criticize Israel on any issue and has issued statements only after major govt.s around the world have done so. And trade as well as defense deals wise, we have had more in the UPA tenure although its something that is expected with time.

So the comments by Mulford hold no water. No wonder the US policy towards South Asia is lopsided. If you take these cables as well as the Pakistani cables together, you can see why the US policy has been in a mess in south Asia. Its his impression that "muslim feathers will be ruffled" if a PM is congratulated when elected. That is just inane. I don't remember the last time GoI publicly congratulated a PM, maybe it was Hasina in Bangladesh but its not something that is done to every country. For all I know, it could be a bureaucratic mix up.

And its not about what Israel vs Palestine can offer, its the entire west Asian region including our biggest trading partners that's were our cash comes from as well as the oil and gas to produce the goods we need. Till now GoI is doing a good balancing job. If his criticism is about why India is not know towing the US line particularly at things like not accepting Jerusalem as Israeli capital - a stand that is validated by the UN and almost every major country(China and Russian joint statements for example) around the world. I think that should be a compliment.

 

[EjazR]

Any links corroborating your assertion. On the other hand, consistently blocking India's entry into OIC speaks otherwise.

Pakistan is the only country that blocked India's inclusion in the OIC.

After that India actually stopped even asking for inclusion. Its upto the OIC to make a formal statement to invite India now.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other countries have at various times publicly stated that India should be invited to the OIC. But unless Pakistan agrees it won't happen as all decisions made by OIC have to be with consensus-meaning any member country can basically veto resolutions.

--

For the reactions of countries during Kargil crisis and Mumbai attacks, a google search will show what I mean.

Just highlighting Saudi Arabia here only but it would apply to other countries like Turkey as well which have been historically close to Pakistan.

Center for Peace and Development Studies::Kargil and New Power Equations in South Asia
In the closed circle of the Islamic community too, Pakistan failed to find any takers for its justification for Kargil adventure. Saudi Arabia was instrumental in persuading Pakistan to ‘shallow the bitter pill of retreat’ . Worried about the rise of radical Islamic forces, the Saudi Kingdom joined hands with Washington to encourage Islamabad to take concrete steps to diffuse tension in Kargil.

India seeks Saudi Arab’s support on Mumbai attack
The Oman ambassador to India Humaid Al Maani, told FE, that “Oman was the first country from the Gulf region who sent their foreign minister Yusuf Bin Alawai to visit India and offer all its support in tracking down the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks.”

Iran’s deputy foreign minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh also met Mukherjee last week and asked Pakistan to intensify its efforts to crack down on terror outfits.

Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti government renewed a call on the international community to seek global solidarity in the fight against all forms of terrorism, affirming Kuwait’s support for any effort that may contribute in facing and eliminating this menace.

Saudi intelligence chief to discuss Mumbai attacks
New Delhi, Jan 14: Saudi Arabia, a close ally of Pakistan, has joined efforts to ensure punishment to those behind Mumbai attacks with its intelligence chief arriving here on Wednesday for talks on the issue after visiting Pakistan.

And not to mention the solidarity shown by many Muslim and Arab Islamic scholars on Mumbai attacks when they gathered together to condemn the Mumbai attacks

Check out
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...slim-scholar-conference-taj-hotel-mumbai.html

 

[gulte]

Pakistan is the only country that blocked India's inclusion in the OIC.

After that India actually stopped even asking for inclusion. Its upto the OIC to make a formal statement to invite India now.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other countries have at various times publicly stated that India should be invited to the OIC. But unless Pakistan agrees it won't happen as all decisions made by OIC have to be with consensus-meaning any member country can basically veto resolutions.

--

For the reactions of countries during Kargil crisis and Mumbai attacks, a google search will show what I mean.

Just highlighting Saudi Arabia here only but it would apply to other countries like Turkey as well which have been historically close to Pakistan.






And not to mention the solidarity shown by many Muslim and Arab Islamic scholars on Mumbai attacks when they gathered together to condemn the Mumbai attacks

Check out
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...slim-scholar-conference-taj-hotel-mumbai.html

What have you mentioned are the reactions, which doesn't mean anything in strategic circles and purely for the general public consumption. You should know that even Pakistan condemned the attack on Mumbai and finally you havn't answer the reason behind the motive of OIC in asking India to conduct referendum in Kashmir.

 

[KS]

@Karthic Sri

Mulford here claims that UPA's policy is "gutless" and "lacks moral clarity".

Think with a clear mind now. He is only talking about India's policy on not supporting US/ISraeli positions to the hilt. Is that a valid description?

Is it not that the US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "gutless" and "lacks moral clarity" when in the recent vote on declaring Israeli settlements illegal- a stand well known under International law, accepted by the UN and almost verbatim from Hillary Clinton's stand on settlement was vetoed? Is that not lacking in moral character?

India's position on Israel-Palestine is very quitest. It criticized the Gaza war only after almost the entire world criticized it and even then it was very mild. It has not been the first to criticize Israel on any issue and has issued statements only after major govt.s around the world have done so. And trade as well as defense deals wise, we have had more in the UPA tenure although its something that is expected with time.

So the comments by Mulford hold no water. No wonder the US policy towards South Asia is lopsided. If you take these cables as well as the Pakistani cables together, you can see why the US policy has been in a mess in south Asia. Its his impression that "muslim feathers will be ruffled" if a PM is congratulated when elected. That is just inane. I don't remember the last time GoI publicly congratulated a PM, maybe it was Hasina in Bangladesh but its not something that is done to every country. For all I know, it could be a bureaucratic mix up.

And its not about what Israel vs Palestine can offer, its the entire west Asian region including our biggest trading partners that's were our cash comes from as well as the oil and gas to produce the goods we need. Till now GoI is doing a good balancing job. If his criticism is about why India is not know towing the US line particularly at things like not accepting Jerusalem as Israeli capital - a stand that is validated by the UN and almost every major country(China and Russian joint statements for example) around the world. I think that should be a compliment.

See my position is very clear as I said in the previous post - Let me repost it.

I agreed that you raised very valid points especially in realtiion to these quotes ;

Pragmatism trumps moral clarity in Delhi's Middle East policy.”

“India will wait until other nations voice their opinions and only then may decide to speak up, if forced or if advantageous to do so, a feature typical of the GOI when it comes to reacting particularly about Middle Eastern issues,

But I only wanted situations like this -

India had “chosen to remain silent” on Mr. Olmert's victory in order “to avoid ruffling Muslim sentiments.”

It can be a case of maybe/may not be. But going by the UPA's general tendencies I tend to agree more with Mulford than on your explanation.

The Israeli diplomat told Mr. Mulford that the Israelis refused to issue the customary post-visit joint statement after the Indian delegation “insisted” that it should be with the dateline Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem.

Whats the effing problem in Jerusalem appearing in the dateline. If the Indians had a problem they should have clarified it before they went there, not while in Israel. All this huff and puff for the name of a city for which IIRC, Israelis have as much claim as Palestinians.

Mr. Magen “confirmed that the Israeli Embassy had been the source for a recent front page story and editorial in the pro-BJP Pioneer criticizing India for its failure to acknowledge the Gaza withdrawal.”

If you want to criticize their invasion, then welcome their withdrawal also. Fair aint it ? And I dont recall the Indian Government ever criticising the Hamas terrorists in the same breath when they are as equally culpable as the IDF.

For example see the reactions of various powers of the world and India's criticism. When almost all the countries urged both the Israelis and the Hamas for restraint (a fair position) - India never mentioned once about the Hamas but was extra-ordinarily scathing in its criticism of Israel even after knowing that the operation started after Hamas fired rockets into civilian areas of Israel. I am asking why this double standards of not criticising Hamas but only Israel ?

World Leaders React to Israel's Operation in Gaza: Condemnations and Criticism

 

[gulte]

Fresh news coming in from wikileaks which suggest that India is extremely unhappy about terror fund emanating from Arab states which are used radicalizing Muslims in India. IMO, As long as middle east has oil, India should play its cards safely.

Post script:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/the-india-cables/article1547622.ece

Other “sore points” in India-Saudi relations that remained despite a vast improvement since King Abdullah's visit to India in 2006 included the Saudi tendency to view India through a “Pakistani lens” on issues like Kashmir and the treatment of Muslims.

India was also irritated by Saudi Arabia's criticism of its relations with Israel, Mr. Shahare told the U.S. Ambassador. He added: “We repeatedly remind them we were among the first to recognize a state of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital and that the Indian commitment to the Palestinian cause remains unwavering. However, India must put its national interest first, and there are compelling pragmatic reasons for its relationship with Israel.''

Which only means that there is a trust deficit(or do not trust) among Indian diplomatic and strategic circles when comes to dealing with Arab countries.

 

[EjazR]

What have you mentioned are the reactions, which doesn't mean anything in strategic circles and purely for the general public consumption. You should know that even Pakistan condemned the attack on Mumbai and finally you havn't answer the reason behind the motive of OIC in asking India to conduct referendum in Kashmir.

That might be your take on it. But these countries provided/ were willing to provide intelligence and security co-operation to track down the perpetrators. One of the reasons why India has rock solid proofs are because of GCC countries corroborating this intellligence.

Compare this with China's role which reluctantly allowed JuD to be banned in the UN but otherwise had always played a spoiler in actually banning this organisation initally.

The Kargil War was again a case of direct intervention by the Saudis to put pressure on Musharraf to withdraw his troops.

Post 2010, intelligence and military co-operation has extended between GCC countries like UAE and Saudi Arabia. Bilateral military exercises and training of officers, along with membership in groups like Indian Ocean Region -ARC. We also have extradition treaties with almost all GCC countries as well now. The intelligence and help that GCC countries can provide in tackling terrorism is far more helpful than anything Israel can provide. Israel can help in the technical aspect probably. But when it comes to HUMINT and catching people GCC countries is where the action is after Pakistan and US.

Intelligence, moderate Islam at heart of Saudi discovery of India
By proposing a regular and upgraded partnership between the two foreign ministries, the intelligence communities as well as between the two National Security Advisers, Delhi and Riyadh are giving teeth to the two declarations signed in these two cities in 2006 and 2010, respectively.
.
.
Pakistan’s unique relationship with the Saudi kingdom, meanwhile, had been underlined by the belief that “Pakistan and the Pakistan army was a source of stability in the region. But Islamabad’s continuing demands for ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan as well as the “moral and diplomatic support” it gave to the Kashmir jehadis, also did not escape Riyadh’s notice.

In contrast, India was a large, Muslim nation, but mostly a benign one. Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan began to rapidly deteriorate. That’s when Delhi began to convey its own message to Riyadh that the Pakistan army was really part of the problem, not the solution, said an Indian official on condition of anonymity.

As the custodian of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina, to which 1.6 billion Muslims all over the world looked for guidance and support, King Abdullah’s Saudi Arabia embarked upon “a very, very major U-turn” when it began to recognise that India, because of the nature of its open, democratic spirit, actually played a major role in the security and stability of the region, the Indian official added.

 

[EjazR]

Fresh news coming in from wikileaks which suggest that India is extremely unhappy about terror fund emanating from Arab states which are used radicalizing Muslims in India. IMO, As long as middle east has oil, India should play its cards safely.

Here is the full text of the cable, see what it says. Note this is 2009 and does not incorporate the new business investment agreements signed in 2010 that allows 100% Indian owned companies to operate in Saudi Arabia and the operationalising of extradition treaty and intelligence co-operation. Funding by non-state actions and by the state itself is two different things These could be Pakistanis resident in SA or even NRIs which are sending the money. Here we need help of the SAG to track down and shut down these channels, hence the extradition treaty and intelligence co-operation mechanism that we have we UAE, SA and other GCC countries.


SUBJECT: INDIAN CHARGE IN RIYADH ON SAUDI-INDIAN RELATIONS

REF: A. 09 JEDDAH 297 B. 09 RIYADH 861

Classified By: CDA Ambassador Richard Erdman for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D )

SUMMARY

-------

1. (C) According to Indian Charge d'Affaires Rajeev Shahare, the Saudi-Indian relationship has blossomed since King Abdullah's visit to India in 2006. The economic relationship has made great strides, and India hopes the political relationship will eventually follow suit. Bilateral sticking points include obstacles to business investment; poor treatment of Indian laborers in the Kingdom; differences of opinion regarding Israel and Pakistan; and concerns that Saudi funding could promote extremism in India's large Muslim community. A stronger Saudi-Indian relationship can bolster U.S. interests insofar as it enhances regional stability, supports political moderation, and advocates for more open investment and economic development. END SUMMARY.

NOTICEABLE GROWTH SINCE 2006

----------------------------

2. (C) During an August 19 meeting with Poloff, Indian Charge d'Affaires Rajeev Shahare trumpeted recent progress in the two countries' bilateral relations. ""King Abdullah's visit in 2006 was a watershed moment,"" he said, and agreements signed during that visit, including the Delhi Declaration, provided a framework for continued cooperation. Saudi Arabia hoped to follow India's example and create a knowledge-based economy that could provide jobs for large numbers of unemployed youth, while Indian businesses saw the potential for significant profits in helping the Saudis achieve this goal. (NOTE: Saudi Commerce Minister Alireza also highlighted this goal during his discussion with Charge Ambassador Erdman on August 9. He explained that India had growing importance for Saudi Arabia's next five-year plan, which focused on creating a ""knowledge economy"" (ref A). END NOTE.) Although a planned PM visit scheduled for August 2 and 3 had recently fallen through, Shahare hoped that this visit would take place in the near future.

3. (U) The statistics support Shahare's assessment. According to a Saudi Gazette article marking India's national day, Saudi-Indian trade has risen threefold over the last five years, to over $23 billion in 2007-2008. Indian investments in Saudi Arabia have doubled over the last five years, to over $2 billion. Approximately 1.8 million Indians reside in the Kingdom, a 10% increase from last year. India is now Saudi Arabia's fifth-largest trading partner, and the fifth-largest market for Saudi exports.

OBSTACLES TO INVESTMENT REMAIN

------------------------------

4. (C) Shahare acknowledged the relationship was far from perfect, noting a ""disconnect"" between lofty aspirations and the reality on the ground. Indian companies still faced an unsatisfactory regulatory climate, he said, and the so-called ""one-stop shop"" for investors, the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA), had not delivered on its promise. He cited Saudi requirements for maintaining large local bank balances, particularly in the case of foreign-owned trading companies, and ""Saudiization"" of the work force, as specific impediments to further growth and investment. For example Bank of India, which hopes to open a branch in Jeddah in 3-4 months, was currently balking at a requirement that its entire front office staff be Saudi.

TREATMENT OF INDIAN NATIONALS REMAINS A CONCERN

--------------------------------------------- --

5. (C) Labor issues and treatment of Indians resident in the Kingdom also remained a bilateral sticking point. Despite the increased emphasis on technology in the Saudi-Indian relationship, Shahare estimated that over 80% of Indians working in the Kingdom remained unskilled or semi-skilled laborers. Professionals who chose to work in the Kingdom were largely ""second or third-tier,"" as the current Indian labor market provided ample opportunities and adequate salaries for skilled professionals. One notable exception was the IT sector, which still attracted high-caliber Indian workers to the Kingdom. Unskilled laborers were sometimes mistreated by employers, and suffered from restrictive Saudi foreign-labor practices. The Indian government had on several occassions expressed interest in a bilateral agreement protecting the rights of Indian workers, but ""the Saudis refused this out of hand.""

ECONOMICS FIRST, POLITICS LATER

-------------------------------

6. (C) Saudi Arabia's post-2006 bilateral focus on economic concerns has, according to Shahare, begun to blunt Saudi criticism of India on the political front. The Saudis have traditionally viewed India through a Pakistani lens, and have been highly critical of India's role in Kashmir and treatment of Indian Muslims, most notably via their role in international fora such as the Organization of Islamic Communities (OIC). While these bilateral sore points remain, they are now (to some extent) politely ignored in the context of greater economic cooperation. Shahare described India's policy as aimed at strengthening the economic relationship, to the point where it becomes the dominant factor in the political relationship. The Indian Charge remarked that while India and Pakistan were often lumped together when discussing politics, Pakistan was ""not a real counterpart"" to India on the economic level.

SUPPORT FOR BOTH ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN CAUSE

--------------------------------------------- ----

7. (C) The Saudis remain critical of India's good relations with Israel, and the Indian government finds it necessary to re-explain its position on its frienship with the Jewish state. ""We repeatedly remind them we were among the first to recognize a state of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital,"" and that the Indian commitment to the Palestinian cause remains unwavering. However, India must put its national interest first, and there are compelling pragmatic reasons for its relationship with Israel. ""We have 1.2 billion people to feed,"" Shahare said, noting Israel's expertise in the field of dry-land farming as an incentive for cooperation. He pointed to the Saudi media's description of an Indian-launched Israeli communications satellite as ""a spy satellite that would watch Arabs,"" as unfortunate.

INTOLERANCE UNACCEPTABLE

------------------------

8. (C) India also remained concerned that Saudi funding for religious schools and organizations contributed to extremism in both India and Pakistan. ""Indian Islam is a tolerant Islam, and we cannot abide by the spread of extremist views."" The GOI remains concerned about charitable contributions from Saudi sources to South Asia.

COMMENT: WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE...

--------------------------------------

9. (S) India has signficant economic and political incentives to cozy up to Saudi Arabia, chief among them access to Saudi oil and markets, as well as support from an Arab-Muslim ally willing to back them -- or at least not actively criticize them -- in their international disputes with Pakistan. The Indians have made a clear economic and political commitment to strengthening their bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia since 2006, and recent strains in the Saudi-Pakistani relationship (ref B) may have helped accelerate progress towards this goal. As the Indian Charge noted, there are some significant sticking points in the bilateral relationship, not the least of which is the complicated labor issue. Nevertheless, to the extent that an emerging partner like India echoes our concern on issues such as terrorist finance and openness to investment, this will enhance our ability to engage the Saudis.

END COMMENT.
---------------------------------

Just to add, here is how DAWN takes a look at the same cable

India consolidating ties with S. Arabia: cables
NEW DELHI: India has significantly come close to Saudi Arabia since King Abdullah’s rare visit to New Delhi in 2006 and it uses apparent strains in ties between Riyadh and Islamabad to consolidate the new relationship, WikiLeaks cables published by The Hindu on Friday said, quoting US cables.

“The Indians have made a clear economic and political commitment to strengthening their bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia since 2006, and recent strains in the Saudi-Pakistani relationship may have helped accelerate progress towards this goal,” a cable by US Charge d’Affaires in Riyadh Richard Erdman said. It was based on his conversation with Indian counterpart Rajeev Shahare.

“As the Indian Charge noted, there are some significant sticking points in the bilateral relationship, not the least of which is the complicated labour issue. Nevertheless, to the extent that an emerging partner like India echoes our concern on issues such as terrorist finance and openness to investment, this will enhance our ability to engage the Saudis,” Mr Erdman said.

Saudi-Indian trade has risen threefold over the last five years, to over $23 billion in 2007-2008, the cable noted. Indian investments in Saudi Arabia have doubled “over the last five years, to over $2 billion”. Approximately 1.8 million Indians reside in the Kingdom, a 10% increase from last year. India is now Saudi Arabia’s fifth-largest trading partner, and the fifth-largest market for Saudi exports.

“Saudi Arabia’s post-2006 bilateral focus on economic concerns has, according to Shahare, begun to blunt Saudi criticism of India on the political front,” Mr Erdman noted.

“The Saudis have traditionally viewed India through a Pakistani lens, and have been highly critical of India’s role in Kashmir and treatment of Indian Muslims, most notably via their role in international fora such as the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC).

“While these bilateral sore points remain, they are now (to some extent) politely ignored in the context of greater economic cooperation. Shahare described India’s policy as aimed at strengthening the economic relationship, to the point where it becomes the dominant factor in the political relationship. The Indian Charge remarked that while India and Pakistan were often lumped together when discussing politics, Pakistan was ’not a real counterpart’ to India on the economic level.

“The Saudis remain critical of India’s good relations with Israel, and the Indian government finds it necessary to re-explain its position on its friendship with the Jewish state,” the cable said.

 

[EjazR]

@Karthic Sri and gulte

And just to clarify once again West Asia policy was not what Mulford used, its a title given by the The Hindu.

Here the "hostage to muslim vote" is being applied to not all West Asian countries but on policies directly affecting Israel. Eg. On Iran relations and nukes, Syrian relations and the Palestinian issue. On the other hand improved relations with Saudi Arabia or other GCC countries is looked as a POSITVE by the US because it indirectly helps the US and through the US Israel.

I think we all pretty much agree that UPA's policy is not hostage to any votebank but to national interests. Atleast my previous posts must have clarified it.



Now the point to understand is how does the US/Israeli aim of Indian FP in West Asia affect Indian interests. A few points

(1) After Faisal, India has had lukewarm ties to most GCC countries, particularly following the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan which GoI under Indira did not take a strong stance against. The recent blossoming relationship with GCC countries beyond the economic realm is a positive for India and the US. Both the lukewarm ties with GCC during the 80s and 90s and the renewed improving ties with GCC in the 2000s is more than just "muslim vote bank" but more to do with Indian interests.

(2)Iran is another country that we had excellent ties in the 90s and under the NDA regime. Now it is in India's regional interest that we have good relations with Iran, particularly keeping in view Afghanistan and Central Asian countries and even further to Russia. Also keeping in mind the pressure it can put on Pakistan if necessary. But US/Israeli interests don't coincide with that and counter to Indian interests we did the IAEA votes against Iran. There was nothing "muslim" about it. There were no protests and pressure on political parties that you will not get muslim vote if you vote against Iran in IAEA. And the parties that were criticising the most were the BJP and the Leftist parties about voting against Iran instead of just abstaining.



(3) Historically we have had good relations with the Socialist Arab countries - Syria, Iraq, Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and the secular leftist PLO currently PA in Palestine. Hamas actually hated Yasser Arafat and India has no official contacts with Hamas. GoI has maintained or atleast tries to maintain good contacts with Syria and PA, Iraq war which was a disaster for Indian interests in the region diminised Iraq's role in the region as well. And because the PLO has been a secular leftist organisation, they have enormous support among the leftist/marxist parties in India as well. Apart from widspread support in the general public as well historically.Even the BJP led NDA has publicly made statments supporting the two state solution and invited PA figures to India.

India, Palestine to cooperate against terrorism
2003
Dubey said Palestine's decision to go ahead with Sha'ath's visit was meant to convey two messages -- one to Israel that India-Palestine relations are still strong and the other, to reach over the heads of the Indian government to the people of India, who "overwhelmingly support" the Palestinian cause.

Sarna said following the delegation-level talks, the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation in training Palestinian diplomats at India's Foreign Service Institute.

The two sides emphasised the importance of enhancing trade and economic cooperation and in the fields of small-scale industry, IT and energy.

Sha'ath began his visit by paying homage to Mahatma Gandhi, laying a wreath at the memorial of the apostle of non-violence at Rajghat.

Aware of Arab and Palestinian sensitivities about the growing India-Israel relations and the visit by Sharon, New Delhi had reiterated its support for the Palestinian cause on the eve of Sha'ath's visit.

"India has consistently supported the Palestinian cause. This longstanding position has roots in India's traditional ties with the Arab world," the external affairs ministry said.

"As part of a broader traditional engagement with the Palestinians, thousands of Palestinian students have studied in India and there are extensive people-to-people contacts. India has also assisted the Palestinian National Authority in upgrading its human resource and nation building capacities," it said.

India has gifted four hectares of land in Delhi's Chanakyapuri diplomatic enclave for the Palestinian embassy and offered to send medical and other relief for the people of Palestine.

The position that India takes on the conflict (pre-1967 borders, Eat Jerusalem as capital of Palestine or condemining Gaza war and retaliatory terrorist acts by Hamas e.t.c.) are always the majority view and follows world public opinion.

It is not in Indian interests to be one of the isolated countries along with US and Israel on every issue that comes to the UN on this conflict. The US and through the US-Israel can afford to take unilateral steps in this regard and get away with it but India can't afford to do so. And there are quotes India condemning Hamas terrorism as well in the UNSC if you google it.

My personal view is look at what Russia, China, Brazil, France, Germany say on these issues, none of these arab countries but India's position tends to be alongwith this consensus view on major conflict issues. There is no need for India to criticise each and everything that happens, and frankly speaking India does not do that anymore either.

And it is certainly not in Indian interests that anyone tries to associate the Israeli-Palestinian issue with the Kashmir issue as there is no comparison between the two. Ironically the only countries that have related the two at an official level are Pakistan (which has gone all out to potray it as such) and Israel (where military commanders to Foreign ministers have linked the two issues at the detriment to Indian interests).

 

[KS]

@EjazR ;

I am specifically talking about India's reaction to the Gazan war ;

Lets see what the majority of the world thinks like (from previous link) - Argentina,Brazil,Chile,China,EU,France,Hungary,Latvia,Mexico,Poland,Russia,Spain,Sweden,UK,UN Sec Gen, UN Security Council all have condemned BOTH the parties and have asked them to exercise restraint

While Denmark blamed the Hamas alone for the issue.

Now Lets see the glorious company India is in when it condemned only Israel and did not say a word about HAMAS - Venezuela,Malaysia and Turkey.

Doesnt it give you an idea ??

If you want to criticize their invasion, then welcome their withdrawal also. Fair aint it ? And I dont recall the Indian Government ever criticising the Hamas terrorists in the same breath when they are as equally culpable as the IDF.

For example see the reactions of various powers of the world and India's criticism. When almost all the countries urged both the Israelis and the Hamas for restraint (a fair position) - India never mentioned once about the Hamas but was extra-ordinarily scathing in its criticism of Israel even after knowing that the operation started after Hamas fired rockets into civilian areas of Israel. I am asking why this double standards of not criticising Hamas but only Israel ?

And as for searching "India condemns HAMAS" in google,it threw up only "India condemns Israel news"

 

[Vinod2070]

I think the assumption of Muslim backlash for certain foreign policy decisions is more or less baseless. The UPA and several other parties do it just to play to the galleries.

For the most part, in substance the national interests triumph over the vote bank as far as foreign policy goes. Else we would never have established such close relations with Israel.

The average Muslim doesn't care about the foreign policy any more than any other Indian of any religion. It is only some fringe groups that bring in the Islamic angle to Indian foreign policy.

 

[EjazR]

Thanks for clarifying Karthic,

I did a quick google search and found this press report, there are probably others you can find as well

India says end conflict, but takes note of Hamas missiles too - Economic Times
December 2008
NEW DELHI: As Israel continued its offensive in Gaza, India, maintaining a fine balance , urged Israel to end the use of force against Palestinian civilians but at the same time expressed awareness about the 'cross-border provocations' that led Israel to mount one of the largest military operations since 1967.

The military offensive by Israel also comes at a time when India is focusing on security issues and the menace of cross-border terrorism in the aftermath of Mumbai terror attacks. The statement from the government was also reflective of the current mood.

`While India is aware of the cross-border provocations resulting from rocket attacks, particularly against targets in southern Israel , it urges an immediate end to the use of force against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip that has resulted in large numbers of casualties ,'' MEA spokesperson Vishnu Prakash said. He added that India 'hopes' that the ongoing efforts in the region to restore peace would be supported.

In the recent past, the government has been highly critical of military offensives from Israel. Earlier statements have always been critical of Israel for the use of 'disproportionate retaliation'. This current offensive, in which 280 people were killed just on the first day of the operation, is being touted as the largest military operation mounted by Israel in recent times. Israel has said that it has launched the attacks in retaliation to daily cross-border missiles and mortars shells attacks on civilian targets in Israel. Israel maintains that these attacks have increased after Hamas ended a six month ceasefire.

According to reports from Gaza, Israeli fighter planes continued to strike targets in Gaza for the second day even as the death toll increased to 280 people.Israel has refused to step down with its foreign minister saying that the military option was the only available option.

Let me just clarify, that cable also mentions Israel's effort to condemn the victory of HAMAS in Gaza, the Indian side kept quiet neither congragulating nor condemning their victory and in private said that just Likud ( an extreme right wing party) came to power in Israel and moderated once in power, they would expect the same from HAMAS.

The Indian position was proved right in the long term because HAMAS finally did agree to the Arab peaceplan and recognition of Israel and everything that goes along with it. This was after enormous pressure put on HAMAS by other Arab countries. The fact is that most of the Arab countries, atleast their govts. were very unhappy with HAMAS espicially because of its close ties with Iran.

The wikileaks again show how Mubarak worked with Mossad to target and kill HAMAS memebrs in the Gaza war. And the same holds with the GCC countries like Saudi Arabia.

Bottom line is as Vinod said, the muslim vote bank is for those parties that can give development, jobs education and security. Forieign policy comes way below on the ladder of importance. And sure there will be sympathy for Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who are suffering, but as long as the GoI maintains the necessary balance which is in India's own interest and has bipartisan support both in the NDA and UPA regimes, then I don't see where the "hostage to Muslim vote" comes to play.

 

[KS]

Thanks for clarifying Karthic,

I did a quick google search and found this press report, there are probably others you can find as well

This was the MEA briefing where not a semblance of balance is there.

Indian Ministry of External Affairs: "The Government of India had hoped that military action by Israel against targets in the Gaza strip would abate. It is disappointing to note that the use of disproportionate force is resulting in a large number of civilian casualties on the one hand and the escalating violence on the other. This continued use of indiscriminate force is unwarranted and condemnable. The Government of India urges utmost restraint so as to give peace a chance as the peace process may well get derailed irreversibly by Israel's attack in the Gaza strip and continued violence." (December 29, 2008)

Let me just clarify, that cable also mentions Israel's effort to condemn the victory of HAMAS in Gaza, the Indian side kept quiet neither congragulating nor condemning their victory and in private said that just Likud ( an extreme right wing party) came to power in Israel and moderated once in power, they would expect the same from HAMAS.

The Indian position was proved right in the long term because HAMAS finally did agree to the Arab peaceplan and recognition of Israel and everything that goes along with it. This was after enormous pressure put on HAMAS by other Arab countries. The fact is that most of the Arab countries, atleast their govts. were very unhappy with HAMAS espicially because of its close ties with Iran.

I dont think the HAMAS has ever agreed to the Saudi authored Arab peace initiative.

Hamas spokesman in Gaza Sami Abu Zuhri still voiced his group's rejection of three demands set by the U.S. and the EU, saying that "We Hamas strongly support the formation of a national coalition government, but we also don't accept the three international requirements that ask us to recognize the state of Israel." Link

"It(Arab Peace initiative) is an impractical initiative,” Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar told The Associated Press Link

Palestinian Foreign Minister and Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar told al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper on Sunday that his group will never "repeat Fatah's mistake of recognizing Israel."

He was asked about the Arab peace initiative which calls for recognition of Israel based on the principle of land for peace and said: "We will never recognize the Arab initiative. We ask what is its real value? And the answer is: nothing, because America and Israel rejected it. Also, we will not accept something called 'recognizing Israel'." Link

"The problem with the Arab peace initiative is that it includes recognition of the state of Israel, the thing that the Palestinian government rejects," Haneya told a group of academics and politicians in Gaza. Link

The wikileaks again show how Mubarak worked with Mossad to target and kill HAMAS memebrs in the Gaza war. And the same holds with the GCC countries like Saudi Arabia.

Actually you dont need to convince me on relations with GCC. I know they are important with about 70% of the oil coming from there. I am speaking about India's position vis-a-vis Palestine-Israel. While it is much more useful for India to take a much more pro-Israeli stand we are still holding onto the same policy that we followed pre-1991 albeit a little less mellow.

Bottom line is as Vinod said, the muslim vote bank is for those parties that can give development, jobs education and security. Forieign policy comes way below on the ladder of importance. And sure there will be sympathy for Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who are suffering, but as long as the GoI maintains the necessary balance which is in India's own interest and has bipartisan support both in the NDA and UPA regimes, then I don't see where the "hostage to Muslim vote" comes to play.

I think the balance should be quantified by the benefits we get from supporting Israel and Palestine. Indian interest is much more served in taking a more pro-Israel stand than it is taking now. What tangible benefit you get from supporting Palestine so vociferously except soothing some 'moral' nerves. ? And dont take me wrongly, even I was not consulted when India supported the Maoists in Nepal who had a single point agenda of overthrowing the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal

 

[KS]

And to clarify to Vinod and EjazR ;

I am not arguing what the Indian Muslims think of Palestine or other issues, I am arguing what the UPA thinks the Muslims will think of their(GoI's) support to Palestine-Israel and let that thinking guide their policy.

There is a difference.