Author: V. Sudarshan
Publication: Outlook
Date: May 20, 2002
Introduction: Despite Gujarat, the
mood in the region is ripe for an enhanced political engagement
"Why is it that when Hindus kill
hundreds of Muslims it elicits an emotionally muted headline in the Arab
media but when Israel kills a dozen Muslims, it inflames the entire Muslim
world?"
It was New York Times columnist
Thomas Friedman who had asked this provocative question. An Arab response
to it came from respected journalist Amir Taheri writing in the Arab News.
"The latest round of killings started with the massacre of 60 Hindus by
militant Muslims in Gujarat," Taheri wrote, adding that "the Government
does not conduct the killings in India."
Taheri was indeed making a fine
distinction between Israeli action in Palestine and the Gujarat violence.
But he didn't stop at that. "Gujarat
is not an occupied territory.... (The) fight in Gujarat is an internal
Indian tragedy. The fight in the occupied territories (is) a colonial conflict,"
argued Taheri. He then made a telling extrapolation: "During the past year
or so, Israel has killed 1,100 Palestinians and wounded a further 7,000.
Relative to the total population
in the occupied territories that is the equivalent of killing 110,000 and
injuring 700,000 Muslims in India, assuming that there are 120 million
Muslims in the country. In other words, Israel is killing far too many
people among a relatively small population." What's more, Tahiri did not
chide India even once.
This is a surprising response in
a country considered the custodian of Islam worldwide, more so because
India is home to the second largest population of Muslims. New Delhi could
take heart from the fact that newspapers here are-and have been-obsessed
with recounting the horrors of Palestine. Come to think of it, Arab governments
haven't even bothered to send demarches a la the EU.
But this doesn't mean there's no
concern here over Gujarat, which does get regularly featured in the inside
pages. Gujarat has indeed become an addition to the two existing issues
on which Arabs harp upon to visiting Indian journalists. They are unhappy
about India's position on Palestine. Second, they express concern over
the continued stand-off with Pakistan.
One prominent Saudi official put
it succinctly: "We hope the situation between India and Pakistan doesn't
slide into a retaliatory cycle. We don't want anybody to drag us into making
a statement or siding with one or the other. We don't want to be pushed
to the point where India risks abandonment of the Arabs and Muslims." Said
in almost one breath, it is difficult to satisfactorily parse these sentiments.
But the message is clear-Gujarat is a growing concern here.
Ironically, the muted reaction in
the Arab world to Gujarat provides an appropriate excuse for India to impart
its relationship with West Asia a broader, more contemporary and, in some
respects, strategic dimension. The timing is particularly opportune as
the region is on an accelerated path to economic, social and political
reforms. This might sound surprising to many. But an emerging political
star of the Saudi royal family describes his nation's style of ushering
in change as "long-winded, low-profile, bit by bit, no white or green papers
and certainly no dramatic announcements tomorrow". But the important thing,
he says, is the intention to "get there".
In this new and changing environs
the Chinese, Russians and Europeans are already stirring. India shouldn't
be left behind, especially since it enjoys historical and cultural affinities
with the region. Some think that were the PM and the foreign minister to
devote even half their effort and energy they have expended on the Look
East policy toward West Asia, India would gain substantially.
There exist innumerable reasons
for a political engagement with West Asia. For one, it's part of India's
neighbourhood and developments there impinge directly on India's security
interests.Then, imports from the energy-rich region meets two- thirds of
India's petro needs. It is also a big source of India's foreign exchange
remittances, exceeding $4 billion a year.
Considering India's emerging ties
with the US and Israel, some cite the September 11 attacks, the consequent
war on terrorism and the Palestinian crisis as factors that would complicate
and restrict New Delhi's engagement with West Asia. But they overlook several
hard realities. For instance, Saudi Arabia, which is the most conservative
in the Arab world, has a robust relationship with the US. This experienced
turbulence post-September 11 (many of the WTC bombers were Saudis) but
Saudi-US ties haven't been fundamentally disrupted.
Most nations are engaged in an internal
dialogue that is tilted towards moderation. On November 15 last year, for
example, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah summoned top clerics to a meeting
and told them "in an emphatic note" that "I hope you appreciate your responsibility
before God, your people and officials so we do not land in an embarrassing
situation. We are a moderate nation and there should be no exaggeration
in religion".
Some also point to the example of
China, which maintains close ties with both the Arab world and Israel.
There's no either/or situation in diplomacy. But it is true the government
needs to do more than pay lip service to the Palestinian cause to endear
itself to the Arabs. New Delhi, for instance, could provide financial assistance
and organise high-profile visits to Palestine, just as it has done in Afghanistan.
Also, Pakistan is no longer a hurdle.
One diplomat says the expulsion of the Taliban from Kabul has reduced the
Saudi relationship with Pakistan from "a strategic to sentimental level".
In fact, the December 13 Parliament attack saw Riyadh condemn it as an
act of terrorism, a first pro-India comment Saudi Arabia had taken over
an issue involving Muslims or an "Islamic" cause. Will New Delhi build
on that?
