India trapped in Israel's embrace

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government tries to present itself as a sort of neutral player in the Israel-Palestine conflict by expressing "concern" over the "terrorist attacks" by Hamas as well as the "humanitarian crisis."

The statements issued by the government clearly show that every attempt is made to ensure that Israel is not seen in the slightest unfavourable light.

The media, by and large, owned by corporate families that thrive on government contracts and advertising, takes its cue from the official statements that never give a sense of the genocidal madness Israel has unleashed on Palestinians.

What has happened in Gaza will reshape international relations and geopolitics of the Middle East or West Asia as the region is better known east of the Arabian Peninsula.

At a recent press briefing, the Ministry of External Affairs spokesman was asked whether India would call for a ceasefire.

A general response was offered: "As regards the issue of Israel and the conflict in Gaza, look, I know this issue has come up a couple of times. I don't have a specific update, but since there were different questions, let me reiterate where we stand. We clarified our position multiple times, including during the UN General Assembly debate on October 27th."

"We have strongly condemned the horrific terrorist attack on Israel, urged the need for zero tolerance for terrorism and called for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages."

"We have also conveyed our deep concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the increasing civilian toll and welcomed efforts to de-escalate the situation and provide humanitarian assistance."

"India has also sent 38 tons of humanitarian relief material. We have emphasised the need for strict observance of international humanitarian law."

"We have also urged the parties to de-escalate, eschew violence and work towards creating conditions for an early resumption of direct peace negotiations towards a two-state solution. And I think that captures all aspects of how we look at that very difficult situation there."

India probably hopes it can manage the situation without directly addressing the horror of Israel's behaviour.

If such optimism does exist in India's official thinking, it's not rational. India has become trapped in an Israeli embrace from which it will not be able to extract itself, irrespective of whether the BJP is in power or not.

How did India get here?

It is worth mentioning how India got into its Israeli alliance.

India began getting closer to Israel when the Congress party was both powerful and in power in New Delhi. Formal relations were established in 1992, a watershed year in Indian history when Hindu extremists razed the 16th century Babri Masjid in the town of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh state.

Congress leader P.V. Narasimha Rao was prime minister at that time. He was considered so right-wing that some within the centrist party called him the first "BJP prime minister" of India.

How did such a man, ideologically close to the hardline Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or the National Association of Volunteers, the BJP's parent organisation, then the "secular" philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (better known as Mahatma Gandhi) and Jawaharlal Nehru, become the Congress president?

By accident.

Congress chief Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a bomb blast in Tamil Nadu state in 1991, so he was thrust into that position.

How did he manage the leadership position in the party? It was not difficult because a section of the Congress is really as Hindu nationalist in outlook as the RSS hardcore.

In Indian politics, the Congress is seen as a champion of soft "Hindutva" (Hindu nationalism), and the BJP is the party of unabashed aggressive nationalism. India's relations with Israel should be seen in this context.

The Congress party's soft Hindutva helps India when international conditions are unfavourable. It is needed to conduct good economic and diplomatic relations with Muslim countries.

Hard Hindutva reigns supreme when the kingmakers and influential sections dominated by upper-caste Hindus believe they are in a position to influence or dictate terms to Muslim countries easily.

More room to manoeuvre

The need to win friends and maintain strong relations with countries in the global south played a big part in India's quest to cultivate friendly relations with the Islamic world in the decades following its independence when it faced adverse neighbours China and Pakistan. Today, India's economic and military strengths give it more room for manoeuvrability.

India sees Israel as a key partner in the military and security sector, even if it relies on the Arab world for energy security, tens of billions of dollars of remittances from the Gulf Arab region every year, and 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are a vast export market for its products.

Many argue that since some Arab and Muslim countries themselves have diplomatic relations with Israel, India cannot be faulted for the same. The falsity of the argument is that India's relationship goes beyond normal diplomatic and trade relations with Israel. What it has is an alliance that is also driven by Hindu nationalism and various geopolitical considerations.

Almost 15% of Muslims in India's population of 1.4 billion are overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian, and combined with the hundreds of millions of those who do not ideologically subscribe to Hindutva or an alliance with Israel, India does have a certain level of pro-Palestinian popular sentiment.

However, the media, the economy, think tanks and other levers of power are controlled by upper-caste Hindus, who see an alliance with Israel as vital for India to be a significant global power like China and the US. The fact that Israel does not have the essential attributes of a typical country is lost on them.

India presents itself as a voice of the global south. Still, when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for an "immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities" on October 27, it abstained from the vote.

Rule-based order matters

The rule-based order in India supposedly advocates for matters to developing countries; it matters to the OIC and the Arab League. The UN and its secretary general and agencies cannot be reduced to being so helpless as to beg Israel not to commit genocide, to respect international, and not to deny millions of people food, water, medicine and shelter.

"If there is a hell on Earth today, its name is northern Gaza. People who remain there, the corners of their existence are death, deprivation, despair, displacement and darkness," said Jens Laerke, spokesperson for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

India's policy on Gaza puts it at odds with the vast majority of countries. It is likely to test its relationship with the Islamic world, which is alarmed and aghast at Israeli lawlessness.

Israel has killed a child on average every 10 minutes, and more than 1.5 million people are without shelter.

The UN Security Council, hopelessly ineffective because the US vetoes anything against Israel, met on November 10 to discuss the crisis. Pleading for a ceasefire, World Health Organisation (WHO) director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, "In Gaza, nowhere and no one is safe."

"Imagine you're trapped in that situation," he asked the ambassadors.

In India's case, imagine being trapped in an embrace with Israel, turning a blind eye to genocide.