Author: Mustafa El-Feki
Publication: Al-Ahram Weekly
Date: February 17-23, 2005
URL: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/730/in1.htm
[Note from the Hindu Vivek Kendra: Interestingly,
being an Egyptian, the author still talks about a pan-Arab identity. Clearly
the Muslims all over the world think of themselves as Arabs first, and then
take on their own cultural identity.]
Over the years, the Arab world has let India
down even though the Asian giant championed the Palestinian cause
When I compare how India used to view the
Palestinian question, back when I was counsellor to the Egyptian Embassy in
New Delhi 25 years ago, with how it does now, I cannot help but wonder how
things change. I was posted in New Delhi in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
when India was a major supporter of the Palestinian cause. The very idea of
having diplomatic ties with Israel was offensive to most Indians.
I once monitored a meeting of late Indian
prime minister Indira Gandhi with a group of Jewish Indians in Mumbai and
then wrote an article about it for the Cairo-based periodical Al-Siyasa Al-Dawliya
(Foreign Policy), speculating on the future of relations between India and
Israel. In response, the Indian ambassador in Cairo filed an official protest
with the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, expressing outrage that I brought up the
possibility that India may one day move close to Israel. At present, relations
between New Delhi and Israel are of strategic nature, with both countries
in close touch, waging a common war against terror. Both have succeeded in
damning the Palestinian resistance and the Kashmir insurgence as terrorist,
not national liberation movements. India and Israel cooperate in many fields,
including military and nuclear technology. So much we know for fact.
One question is in order, however. What made
India change its mind and throw itself in the arms of a country that occupies
Arab and Palestinian land, to the point where it has played host to Ariel
Sharon? India and Israel have their own separate political agendas. India
wishes to have access to US and Israeli technology, particularly in the development
of weapons. Israel, for its part, wishes to have the political backing of
a powerful nation. Besides, both countries have a common interest in monitoring
the nuclear programmes of Iran and Pakistan. Let's now examine some of the
reasons that made India change its mind.
First, we have made the error of viewing the
Indian- Pakistani conflict from an Islamic perspective. We have tried to "Islamise"
the ongoing conflict in south Asia, posing as protectors of Islam and custodians
of the international community. And we have overlooked the regional role of
India, with Arab leaders showing up in New Delhi much less frequently than
before.
Secondly, when India applied for membership
of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the response was extraordinary.
A country with 120 million Muslim citizens applied to membership and what
happened? Islamic countries, in typical naiveté, rejected the Indian
application, imagining this would please Pakistan and teach India a lesson.
The right thing to do, of course, would have been to co-opt this major country
and give it OIC membership. This would have put the brakes on Indian rapprochement
with Israel. An Arab-Indian rapprochement may have even alleviated, not increased,
the pressure on Pakistan. Imparting a religious coating on a conflict between
two neighbouring countries was a political misjudgement, and a sign of Arab
miscalculation.
Thirdly, India was close to the former Soviet
Union and, as a major country of the Non-Aligned Movement, critical of US
policies. That was during the Cold War, but things have changed since then.
India has forged close links with the US due to political as well as technological
reasons. And its newly acquired superiority in ICT proves it knew what it
was doing. India has also succeeded in replacing Pakistan as the US favourite
country in the region. I wouldn't be surprised to see India assume the role
of a policeman in the Indian Ocean and the outskirts of the Gulf, with US
blessing and with the aim of encircling so-called Islamic violence. This would
be in harmony with Israel's agenda, and it may pave the way to a scheme of
joint control over the Greater Middle East.
Fourthly, Some Arab countries have pursued
a balanced policy towards the conflict in south Asia. Under Gamal Abdel-Nasser,
Egypt was so close to India that the latter had no motive to flirt with Israel.
Back then, India was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian people, and I
still remember that the Palestinian ambassador to New Delhi enjoyed the privilege
of meeting the Indian prime minister at anytime he wished to do so. But as
the Islamic phenomenon spread and some Arab policies acquired a religious
tint, India grew visibly suspicious of the Arab and Islamic worlds. To make
things worse, Arab diplomacy in India was lackadaisical over the past two
decades.
Fifthly, the Indians are a practical and smart
people, so are the Pakistanis. It is advisable for us to maintain balanced
relations with both. Both countries are nuclear powers and are highly regarded
across the Arab world. Having good ties with both countries makes sense at
these turbulent times.
We have lost India so far for no good reason,
I should say. We have failed to stay close to an industrially advanced state,
one with nuclear and space capabilities. We have failed to do so although
there is a clear ethnic resemblance between the Indian subcontinent, including
Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the people in our Arab world. It is time we mend
this error. It is time to bring Arab countries closer to both India and Pakistan,
rather than take one side or keep our distance altogether. I believe the Arabs
have only themselves to blame for India's change of heart on the Palestinian
question.
In early 2003, I was in New Delhi with a parliamentary
delegation. It was my first to India in over 20 years. I met the Indian national
security adviser, who is a veteran politician, and he told me his country,
despite its close links with Israel, is committed to legitimate Palestinian
rights. Such attitude is encouraging, and it makes me think that the Arab
League, whose current secretary-general was once an ambassador to India, should
start a coordinated effort to improve Arab links with India. We need to bring
back the balance to our policy and revive the old friendship, while maintaining
our close bonds with Pakistan.
Some people have taken issue with what I mentioned
about the need to integrate the Arab mindset into the current global mindset.
They called my assertion an assault on local identity and a sabotage of the
pan-Arab character. I still believe that this is a responsible way of addressing
our problems, that this is the way forward in the context of comprehensive
reform -- the reform that countries in this region seek, the reform that emanates
from their own fabric and expresses their own resolve. We must distinguish
between two things. One is comprehensive revision, which makes transformation
a part of reform. The other is uncalculated compromises that lead to a general
sense of capitulation of other people's wishes. Only the latter I am against.
International isolation is impossible. Let me say this loud and clear. This
is what history tells us, this is the spirit of the age, and this is how things
are.
* The writer is chairman of parliament's Foreign
Affairs Committee.
