If you think reconciling the Israelis and Palestinians is hard, try the Indians and Pakistanis. The latest war in Gaza has laid bare India’s and Pakistan’s different views about the Middle East, revealing a great deal about how these countries view themselves and each other. The newly elected Indian government of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has become more confident about showing sympathy for Israel, bringing to the surface a relationship that has been growing for more than two decades. Pakistan refuses to recognize the Jewish state and its outrage over Palestinian deaths in Gaza is colored by its identity as a country bristling to defend the rights of Muslims around the world, from Palestine to Kashmir. These different worldviews could ultimately exacerbate the historical animosity between the two countries, and pit the pro-Israel Hindu right in India against the hawkish pro-military establishment in Pakistan.
In the early decades after independence in 1947, it was India rather than Pakistan that was particularly vocal about the Palestinian cause. The partition of Palestine to create the state of Israel in 1948, coming just one year after British India was partitioned to create Pakistan, was seen in South Asia as a legacy of British imperialism. India’s commitment to champion the Palestinian cause fitted, therefore, with the anti-colonial spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement of which it was a leading member. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi — disliked by Pakistan for her role in its defeat in the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh — got on particularly well with Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat. In addition to its anti-colonial stance, India had powerful domestic political reasons for supporting the Palestinian cause. The Israel–Palestine conflict is viewed monolithically in South Asia as one primarily between Muslims and non-Muslims. Indian governments, wary of alienating Muslim voters who make up roughly 14% of the electorate, had an incentive to side with the Palestinians. Finally, India was determined to prove its secular credentials. Support for the Palestinians — which was then a leftist cause — was one way for governments in New Delhi to show they could fairly represent both Hindus and Muslims, thus demonstrating that Pakistan had been wrong to insist on the need for a separate homeland for Muslims.
While Pakistan also viewed Israel as having been imposed on Palestine as a result of European colonialism, it was nonetheless more circumspect because of its alliance with the United States during the Cold War. Islamabad’s close ties with Washington also meant it was regarded with suspicion by Arab nationalists and kept at arm’s length. Though Pakistan refused to recognise Israel, Pakistani support for the Palestinians in the early decades after 1947 came from the public rather than officials, who had a different message. Its future military ruler, then-Brigadier Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, massacred Palestinians on behalf of Jordan in the Black September civil war in 1970.
The end of the Cold War, Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and subsequent defeat by the United States, and India’s own economic liberalization in 1991, all forced New Delhi into a major reappraisal of its policies towards the Middle East. The ideological approach that inspired the Non-Aligned Movement was replaced by a more pragmatic one designed to secure India’s economic and security interests. After siding mainly with secular Arab nationalists in the past, India began to improve relations with Saudi Arabia, a close ally of Pakistan, to secure its energy needs. Its new pragmatism also led it to give full diplomatic recognition to Israel in 1992. The two countries had much in common in terms of security. Both were status quo powers, with less incentive than their enemies to try to change the existing set-up — Israel when it came to Palestinian statehood and India in its conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir. Both were non-Muslim democracies that faced a threat from Islamist militants. Growing defense and security cooperation between the two countries bore fruit during the border war between India and Pakistan in the Kargil region of Jammu and Kashmir in 1999. At the time, India was facing sanctions over its nuclear tests the year before. When India ran short of artillery shells, Israel stepped in to supply them. India and Israel have steadily increased defense cooperation ever since. Among other things, Israel provides India with high-tech defense equipment that New Delhi has traditionally failed to get from the United States because of U.S. laws about transferring sensitive equipment. This includes Israeli Phalcon airborne warning and control systems that could be used against Pakistan.
In contrast to India, Pakistan has become, if anything, more ideological in its worldview. After the independence of Bangladesh undermined the raison d’etre for Pakistan as a homeland for India’s Muslims, it became more strident in asserting its Islamic identity. The anti-colonialism fuelling support for Palestinians was viewed through a distinctly Muslim historical narrative , which implied that undivided India might have been freed from British rule far sooner had its Muslim inhabitants not been let down by the Hindus. This narrative also conflated anti-Hinduism with pan-Islamist sentiment in which Pakistan became the defender of all Muslims. This worldview gained in strength over the years as the Pakistan-run jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan melded into its longstanding anti-India stance. Thus, for example, in one typical textbook for “Pakistan Studies” — a compulsory course in the country’s history and ideology — Hindus under the British Raj were players of a double game who let down the Muslims “on account of their primordial psyche.” The Pakistan Studies textbook, this particular one published in 2012 for use at the Islamia College University, Peshawar links Palestine to Kashmir, describing a resolution of both conflicts as integral to Pakistan’s national interests. Importantly, it stresses that Pakistan is committed to the peaceful resolutions of all conflicts, whitewashing Pakistan’s own role in nurturing Islamist militants to counter India, including in Kashmir. The narrative of victimhood, of a peaceful country forced to defend Muslims against threats both near in India and far in Israel, has served Pakistan’s security establishment well, allowing it to justify a large and politically powerful army. It is also self-perpetuating. Pakistan’s external behaviour — exerting influence through the use of Islamist proxies — has led to such difficult relations with India and Afghanistan that it can reasonably claim to be faced with hostile neighbors on both sides. This in turn empowers the military, reinforcing its role in domestic politics. The national narrative — which enmeshes Palestine and Kashmir, pan-Islamism with anti-Hinduism — has so far proved extremely difficult to challenge, whether in seeking peace with India, demanding a stronger role for democracy, or the full-scale dismantling of militant networks inside Pakistan.
The different worldviews of India and Pakistan have been on full display since the latest crisis over Gaza erupted. In New Delhi, the BJP-led government made a show of support for Israel by refusing to allow a resolution in parliament condemning it for the strikes on Gaza. In 2006 , Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat state, visited Israel and promised to return. India’s support for Israel is somewhat hesitant and discreet for now. It voted in favor of a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution launching an investigation into Israeli strikes in Gaza. BJP hawks, however, are calling for India to be much more vocal in supporting Israel. Domestically, the government appears to have room to do so. Having won national parliamentary elections this year despite suspicions over Modi’s role in presiding over the killings of Muslims in communal violence in 2002, the BJP is in a strong position to override any objections at home to warming ties with Israel.
Internationally, India has discovered that its relationship with Israel does not prevent it from building ties with Muslim countries, in part due to the Arab world’s own pragmatism and divisions on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and in part reflecting its own growing political and economic clout. Notably, it has been able to improve ties with Saudi Arabia — a country that is militarily close to Pakistan — while maintaining positive relations with Iran, a Saudi and Israeli rival. Growing world anger over high Palestinian civilian casualties might limit India’s public support for Israel in the short term. But the trend is clear. Neither concern about Muslim voters at home, nor traditional “Third Worldism” apply any longer to India’s policies towards Israel.
Pakistan responded to the crisis in Gaza by sponsoring the UNHRC resolution setting up an independent commission to investigate Israel’s behavior in Palestinian territory. It also promised to observe a day of mourning for the Palestinians by flying its flag at half-mast. On social media, popular outrage occasionally spilled into outright anti-Semitism — at one point #IfHitlerWasAlive was trending on Twitter in Pakistan. Clearly, Pakistan is not alone in being angered by the scale of Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza. In other Muslim countries, resentment over Israeli policies is usually wrapped together with dislike of the West. Where Pakistan is unusual, however, is in its degree of hostility toward the United States, Israel’s main backer. The two countries have been at odds since the 1990s over Pakistan’s support for the Islamist militants it nurtured to counter India and exert Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. The U.S.-led overthrow of the Afghan Taliban in 2001 exacerbated these differences without ever fully bringing them to the surface, so that Pakistani public opinion is both deeply hostile and suspicious of anything the United States says or does. Pakistan also has the distinction of mourning Palestinians rather more than its own people at a time of a major domestic refugee crisis. Close to a million people have registered as internally displaced persons after fleeing a military offensive in North Waziristan and there are increasing reports of civilian casualties in an operation that Pakistan, like Israel, says is to eradicate a threat from terrorism.
As the only country created specifically as a homeland for Muslims, and one that sees itself as an ideological Muslim state defending Muslim rights worldwide, Pakistan is particularly susceptible to the influence of external events. When Muslims are perceived to be ill treated by non-Muslims, in Palestine or Kashmir, Pakistan bristles with the sense of victimhood that allows it to justify maintaining a hyper-nationalist militarized state. In turn, it becomes a country that thrives on conflict, and where the military establishment dominates despite its incomplete transition to democracy. This is not necessarily the intention of many Pakistanis standing up for Gaza, but it is the effect. Outrage over Palestine feeds a carefully cultivated national narrative that wraps it together with perceived ill treatment of Muslims in Kashmir and conflates anti-India sentiment with pan-Islamism. Its stance will have no impact on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; for all its talk of human rights abuses, Pakistan cannot afford to annoy Saudi Arabia by siding too closely with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Hamas.
The different approaches to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and to the Middle East as a whole, have long been a source of tension between India and Pakistan. By trying to steer a pragmatic course and maintain good relations with all players for its own economic, energy and security interests, India is increasing its diplomatic clout in the Muslim world, the very constituency Pakistan would like to consider its own. In doing so, it is pulling far ahead of its smaller, pricklier neighbor, accentuating Pakistan’s sense of victimhood. India is also using its relationship with Israel to build its high-tech military capabilities, giving Pakistan another cause for anxiety and another reason to prioritise defense spending.
While this is a longstanding issue, the latest crisis in Gaza comes at a particularly delicate time for South Asia. Both Kabul and New Delhi fear that as the United States prepares to withdraw more combat troops from the region, Pakistan will step up support for Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Pakistan denies this. Yet in its stridency over Gaza, wearing its support for Palestine as a badge of national honor, Pakistan is showing no sign of stepping away from its national narrative. It is one that leaves no room for pragmatism or compromise. It is not the kind of mood authorities would normally encourage if they planned on making peace with Pakistan’s neighbors. Rather it is one that has spilled into open conflict with India in the past, while reinforcing the power of the military at home.
Myra MacDonald is a former Reuters journalist who has worked in Europe, the Middle East and South Asia. She was Chief Correspondent in France and Bureau Chief in India. After publishing Heights of Madness, a book on the Siachen war between India and Pakistan, she has focused in recent years on writing about Pakistan.
Photo credit: Al Jazeera English
aazib 
Enkay 
Ty Bomba 
A J KHAN 
san 
Muhammad abdullah 
alok 
Nasir Ali 
amit 
gary 
allaisa 
PUNIT 
Zia 
V Narayan 
Sridhar 
Frank 
dd 
Aazib 
noman 
Kepler-8B 
vinsin 
raj 
MSA 
sharon 
newlite 
Vishnu Sharma 
IBT619 
Zak 
Mazo 
Samrat 
SK 
Asian 
I wonder how much time you pondered over to use pragmatism 4 times instead of “selfish”or “immoral”.And btw the military ratio of both countries have never exceeded 1:3 historically.You may as well like to explain how a “large and politically powerful army” is in anyway different than the Indian army, asserting its own course of national narrative be it Siachin,Sir creek or Kashmir issue.
@aazib : You say “And btw the military ratio of both countries have never exceeded 1:3 historically.”
However Indian Population is over Six Times that of Pakistan and the Indian Economy is Nine to Ten Times as compared to Pakistan. Thus a Ratio of 1:3 is far too EXPENSIVE for Pakistan as Pakistan’s Per Capita Annual Budget Spending is disproportionate to the Size of Its Economy as compared to India.
So, in your view, is there any chance this Pakistani militancy in regard to Gaza/Palestine/Islam ever translates into them intervening (specifically in the form of launching, or giving to Hamas, etc., a WMD)?
Great piece! liked it especially your analysis of both Pakistan and India through the window of Palestinian and Israeli support on different grounds. The very interesting thing you are stick to is India’s support is “pragmatism based” while Pakistan’s support is “ideology based”. That’s the reason we the people of Pakistan, Afghanistan and India and even the world are living a life of miseries owing to poor security surroundings produced by the so called pan-Islamism ideology. That is only a pave way for Pakistan’s powerful military establishment to rule the nation ahead after its 7 decade direct and indirect monarch.
The author has unnecessarily spread the article. The line of relationship is clear. India is against Muslims and present Government of Modi has won election on hate vote.
Pakistan prides in its religion & abhors repression of Palestinians.
Indian relations with Muslim countries are based on greed & need, while Pakistan relations are based on higher human values.
Rubbish – Pakistan is the mercenary always begging Gulf states for money and special oil prices to keep itself afloat. It’s Pakistan’s Fauj foundation which sends ex-soldiers to beat up human rights protesters in Bahrain. When your beloved Palestinians came into conflict with the govt of Jordan during Black September, who was it who hunted down and killed them all? It was your beloved General Zia-ul-Haq, who was on loan to Jordanian Army at that time. Every time you Pakistanis lie about your love for fellow Muslims, your Allah is watching.
Here
Are some facts literacy rate in Pakistan 82%
While poor India just …. 57%
Another lie ,india’s literacy rate is 74% and pakistan literacy rate is 58% .
I think you are also among all those insanes who believe the western managed and controlled media. The literacy of Pakistan is much more higher than India. Also the quality of education is faar better than India’s. I have been in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman, I have met Indians belonging to various areas of life, working for various organizations on various designations, the poor Indians can’t even communicate their view point. Just think about your modi, when he was once asked by an anchor regarding his role in the clashes erupted, he took a sip of water, looked at some one who was guiding him from behind the cameraman,modi removed his mic and ran away, and that person is now the prime minister of India.
You just proved her point about feeling victim and harboring an ideology rather than being pragmatic.
Here are some facts for u before you take sides.
Population of hindus in pakistan
1947 : 25%
Today: 1.6%
Population on muslims in india
1947: 8%
Today: 13.4%
But unfortunately you will never understand because your ideology is the basis for creation of pakistan and if u accept otherwise you and pakistan will have no purpose to exist. You will realize that you were conned into believing something that has no factual basis.
“Indian relations with Muslim countries are based on greed & need, while Pakistan relations are based on higher human values.”
HAHAHHAH…
pakistan and human values in the same sentence is hilarious.
look at the history of your country from jinnah’s call for riots on “direct action day” In 1946 to killings of shias and christian minorities in your country (so much so that minorities have reduced to 2% of your population) , jihad and terrorism involvement in kashmir and afghanistan..
you call his “higher human values” ? hahahahha
Higher human values I take it includes killing Ahmadias and looting and burning their properties while your police watch. Whatever happened to ‘higher human values’ in your country when it relates to minorities? They are not worth it, I take it. Hypocrisy thy middle name is ‘Pakistan’
where was this pride while doing genocide in 1971 in their own country or more recently bombing own civilians while terrorists had long fled from the are of operation.
I will even argue that our “ideology” based policy as defined in this article is in itself flawed and inconsistent. If we genuinely cared about Muslim welfare and concern for higher human vales for citizens of other countries…versus just trying to score points to keep our dated doctrines in place; how does it explain our own lack of tolerance towards non Sunni muslims and other minorities in our own country??
Mr AJ Kahn to be specific most of the non-muslim world is “against muslims” in the sense it does not want to adopt sharia and does not want to live according to Islamic values, but its not against all muslims otherwise western nations would not allow islamic immigration and India would have forced muslims to Pakistan ages ago. Why don’t we look at what we have in common? we are all against arbritary murder? and generally Indians and Pakistani when abroad are helpful to each other, so there must be something link us? we are cut from the same cloth.
M.J Akbar, the eminent Indian journalist, editor, writer said it well in his book “The tinderbox: The past and future of Pakistan” that Pakistan is not just a muslim state but an Islamic state conceived as a fortress of Islam, the defender of the faith. This is the reason why Pakistanis seem to unduly worry about the happenings in muslim lands that should not concern them.
Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan could win the support of the muslim masses of North India in the late 40s when he changed the narrative from “muslims in danger” to “Islam in danger”.
After the nation lost its east wing in 1971, better sense has not prevailed. IT continues to view itself as the defender of the faith and India, its eternal enemy.
It is pointless trying to argue with Pakistanis on these issues. It is better to discuss Bollywood! Despite hating Indians, Pakistanis grudgingly admire and watch bollywood movies. Perhaps, there is still some hope.
Pakistan US relations soured around 2005 rather than in the 1990s with America accusing Pakistan of helping the Haqqanis. The BJP’s pro Israel stance is just as ideological as Pakistan’s anti Israel stande. The BJP sees Israel as ally since this fits in with its anti Islamic agenda. The present government of Nawaz Sharif has barely made a murmur on Gaza, contrary to the author’s claims, which has led to many people here labeling Sharif a Zionist.
@Enkay my point being, it’s the call of a threatened state to decide the relative strength ratio that will ensure its sustainable deterrence. Pakistan is only pacing up to match.
@aazib : One looks forwar to Pakistan attaining a 1:1 Parity vis-à-vis Military Ratio with India so that Pakistan can fully match India with a sustainable deterrance. I look forward to Pakistan’s Annual Defence Expenditure being equal to that of India so that Pakistan can full pace up to the match.
“sustainable deterrance”
By now, most everyone outside Pakistan agree that it was the Pakistani Army that attacked India in each of the four wars between them. Deterrence! Really?
@Enkay dear, I am sure you wouldn’t raise a new mountain corps along the northern border with an intent to attack. Given your educated approach, I hope you to know that both countries comply “defence-attack” policy (though both have failed in implementation). Future aspirations of being one of the super powers, security council membership and becoming economic giants does not start and end at economy. It entails advanced technology, infrastructure,education, domestic producaion and most importantly well equipped and modern forces cuz security stands out in national policies of most volatile region countries. Now coming 2 Pakistan, it would only seek parity if the intent is to attack. A country deprived of basic national amenities should certainly be focusing on its ppl, but the history of conflicts forces us 2 draw a line which remain visible to big players. That line, my friend is the minimum deterrence Pakistan should ensure at all costs.
rubbish article – wasted my precious 15 minutes
The champion of human rights, and so called largest democracy no longer supports Palestinian cause because India’s interest is in Israel’s fire power machinery. As a matter of fact, use of Iron Dome is a live demonstration to India to buy into this system which cannot completely stop the home made fire crackers.
India has nor implemented any human rights till now so how come it is a champion.
Israel has fought all odds form Arabs to Hitler and formed an state which they are proud of. And defend till there last breath. Kashmir is similar to India and we will protect it to our last drop of blood present in our body.
India and Israel are natural Allie. Its not against any community but will protect our-self if threatened.
Myra’s writing has consistently improved in substance as seen in this piece. I will suggest one change though. Try & see how it reads if in many places, replace the word ‘Pakistan’ with ‘Pakistani Punjabi Army Generals’. Similarly in many places, replace the word ‘India’ to recognize the two separate identities. First, for the pre-BJP period, replace ‘India’ with the term ‘Nehru-Gandhi dynasty’ & for the later, current period, with the term ‘pragmatic BJP’.
the foreign relations in Pakistan are predominated by “Pakistani Punjabi Army Generals”…. relations are perfect when they serve “them” best… concerns, hue nd cry of ppl doest matter… ppl can or can not go along “their” tide…
“Foreign Relations/polices are set by military establishment not by foreign office” of Pakistan
well times have changed. Youth are becoming more educated and we don’t have to time to quarrel over petty things like this. We’re all apart of this world, the ideology of divisions is stupid. Lets just all get along and show cultural competence and respect. The important things are righteousness, equality and peace.
@dd: I find your view “replace the word ‘Pakistan’ with ‘Pakistani Punjabi Army Generals’. ” as rubbish. Why do you want to hide Pakistanis behind the name fo Punjabis? Everyone knows who are Pakistanis. Pakistan has very few Hindu/Punjabi and those who are there are dormant.
I agree that BJP is sensible goverment, than the corrupt family rule of India’s Congress party for last 10 years. Congress played dirty politics to appease minority and Pakistan’s hypocricy, just for minority vote bank in India.
Majority Inidans have sympathy with Israel and we support their way to defend their country from neighbouring terrorism. India is also facing similar problems with Pakistani militants and should learn from Israel.
Pakistan is on its last leg.
We have already broken one of it leg in 1971
Pakistan will cease to exist in a few years and so will Palestine.
Both these peoples will disappear into oblivion.
The future belongs to the more pragmatic, virile and strong people of India and Israel.
It funny how what India says and what its people think contradict one another. For instance. “India is a liberal democracy where interests of all minorities are considered.” We hear that every day on Indian media and govt. statements. Now here comes the fun part.Ur Muslim minority, naturally is very sensitive regarding whats happening in Gaza, in fact last i heard they were planning on boycotting coke n pepsi, despite that here u r wishing Palestinians would fade into oblivion, not giving a damn to what ur “Muslim Brethren (whom u love very much)” think. Now that is just Hypocrisy, aint it?
Poor article. Funny how many Indians coming out of the woodwork and talking nonsense as usual. Merely mention Pakistan winds them up so much. Pakistan is and always will be sufficient to deal with India and no amount of trite will change that ! :)
Failure to appreciate or even tolerate a third party opinion is nothing new from Pakistani’s.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but Indians are here to read an article about India – not Pakistan, which is increasingly irrelevant not only to Indians but to the world as well.
Its strange you would not mention the military aid that Pakistan provided to the Arabs against Israel in 1967 and Yom Kipur War. Those were not actions of individuals but rather support from the “officials”.
@dd “By most” shouldn’t mean 1 billion ppl. It should refer to conclusive and educated opinion of “most of intelligentsia” which is different than your take on the issue, but that wasn’t the point I was making. Regards
Nice article, but I’ll like to add something here.. the main reason for the apparent shift of India from being one of the biggest supporters of the Palestine cause to becoming a Israeli ally has got as much to so with pragmatism as emotions.. when you support someone, you expect support in return, or at least you expect your support to be recognized.. but in India-Palestine case, the Indians kept supporting their cause for decades, and the Palestinian states, on the other hand, kept demonising India.. they sent military and logistical aid to Pakistan during all indo-pak wars, and even sent fighter jets against India. they opposed India on every world forum, while India supported them everywhere.. they even didn’t let India join OIC, even when India has 3rd largest population in the world.. The Israelis, on the other hand, kept wooing and supporting India right from the start, even when India refused to recognize Israel.. All these things do have impact of a nation’s psyche. India was pretty much forced to tilt towards Israel by none other that Palestinians themselves.. the palestinians shot themselves in the foot.. In 1947, the republic of India was formed on very utopian principles.. the foreign policy emphasis was on “right vs wrong”, rather than national interests. but things changed in past 65 years. India has learnt to play the diplomacy game, and play it very well..!!!
A very good article. But as pointed out one needs to add Pakistan’s role in sending troops to Palestine. It was to crush and contain Palestinians , not sent to fight Israel. This was at the behest of General Zia. Also, Pakistan is economically unsustainable since its inception. It has been begging since it was born. It started right with Jinnah who sent feelers to USA and asked for monitory help. And what did Pakistan do with 66 crores that Gandhi released to it? They attacked India in Kashmir, covertly by changing their attire. Kargil is a carbon copy of what Pakistan did in 1948. Pakistan is the ONLY country in the world which asks its citizens to denounce Ahmedi’s as non muslims before they get a passport. With such a concubine approach at the core of its foreign policy, how can Pakistan even call its self a sovereign state? I guess the day it doesn’t get attacked by US drones are the days it can count as a sovereign state, other days, it is a beggar with only 2 things growing it it, 1 is its population, and 2nd is its nuisance value. People of Pakistan have killed almost ALL people even accused of Blasphemy laws, and the murderer of Salman Tasir , ex governer of Punjab was showered with flower petals by none other than lawyers and is a celebrity in Pakistan. Pakistan has no future if it carries on its current path.
We Indians will soon throw our weight around in the subcontinent which is verily OUR LIVING SPACE.
There are 1.25 billion Indians and their aspirations have to be met and we will incorporate all of Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Bhutan and Lastly Pakistan and Afghanistan into the Greater Indian Rashtra.
Why don’t India and Pakistan become neutral on Israel and Palestine like China is?