The
Puzzling Israeli, Saudi, Indian Shia Diplomacy In Lucknow
Saeed Naqvi
In May 1993, Shimon Peres became
the first Israeli Foreign Minister to visit India. Rajiv Gandhi had taken the
initiative to upgrade relations. P.V. Narasimha Rao actually accelerated the
process which led to the opening of embassies in Tel Aviv and New Delhi.
Rajiv had to overcome
considerable inertia on relations with Israel. Yes, India’s support for the
Palestinian cause was non negotiable but the argument that Indian Muslims would
be agitated if relations with the Jewish state were upgraded were patently
false. Indian foreign policy being sensitive to minority interests was totally
different from policy being hostage to Muslim whims. This would lend credence
to the whispering campaign, against Muslim appeasement the Indian Right was
embarked on ever since Indira Gandhi split the Congress in 1969.
Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic
Verses, Shah Bano and Muslim Personal Law, the minority character of Aligarh
Muslim University and such like issues had all been exaggerated as matters of
vital concern to Indian Muslims. They needed security, education, jobs, entrepreneurial
help and de ghettoisation.
Upgrading of relations with
Israel had a global context. Collapse of the Soviet Union had created a compelling
Sole Superpower moment. The set of reasons that caused P.V. Narasimha Rao to
invent Manmohan Singh as his Finance Minister also operated in the switch
towards Israel.
So internally prepared was the
Indian establishment to clasp the hands of the West and its powerful engine,
namely Israel, that the “switch” became a “lurch”. And this “lurch” began to
look particularly unseemly after George W. Bush, embarked on a global war on
terror.
Instead of quelling terror, this
war ended up unwittingly promoting recruitment cells for terrorists in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen,
Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, Central Asia, Europe, US, Russia, China, everywhere.
In brief, promotion of relations
with Israel in early 90s made sense because of the altered global situation and
the promise of peace embedded in the Oslo process. An imbalance in India’s
foreign policy was being corrected. Israel was being brought into groups India already
was dealing with.
There was a measure in New
Delhi’s steps then. In fact, when I asked Peres why there was not much
substance in a relationship which had been inaugurated with such fanfare, he
quipped:
“India-Israel relations were
like French perfume: they had to be smelt not drunk.”
That was then; a relationship
along with all the others in West Asia.
After the negative fallout of
the War on terror, one would have expected New Delhi to proceed cautiously on a
path that would prevent a 200 million strong Muslim community in India being
alienated.
Earlier the Indian leadership has
been wrong in holding up its equation with Israel because of the wrong assumption
that such a step would anger Indian Muslims. It was perverse to see the
Palestinian issue through a communal prism. But the manner in which New Delhi subsequently
hurtled headlong towards Israel despite universal Muslim anger because of the
provocative way in which the global war on terror was fought, distinctly hurt
Indian Muslims. These circumstances are a total contrast to those attending the
Peres visit in 1993. This is why eyebrows have been raised by the puzzling
visit to Lucknow by Dore Gold, Director General of the Israeli Foreign office.
This happened in May when it was more or less certain that the nuclear deal
with Iran would be signed in June or July.
At the Lucknow meeting, Gold was
flanked by high powered former Israeli military and Intelligence officers. What
was even more spectacular about the Lucknow conclave was the presence of an
equally high profile team from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi delegation was let by
retired Major General Dr. Anwar Majed Eshki, Chairman of a Jeddah based think
tank and once close to Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The delegations had the
sanction of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
What was the purpose of the
Lucknow meet? Who organized it?
The meeting could not have taken
place without New Delhi’s unofficial support. Arrangements for the conclave
were made by the Vivekanand International Foundation. National Security Adviser,
Ajit Doval, was Founder Director of the think tank. The bandobast for the
meeting was handled by Gen. Syed Ata Hasnain of the Foundation who retired some
years ago as Commander of the 15 Corps in Srinagar.
The Indian delegation was led by
the former Raja of Mehmudabad, scion of a Shia family with wide connections in
the Shia world, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Obviously, the Israeli-Saudi
delegation were keen to gauge Iranian influence on Indian Shias, the potential
for Shia-Sunni differences on future Indian attitude towards Iran, after Iran becomes globally kosher post the
nuclear deal.
Possible construct on the
Lucknow meet, one of the five such meetings in various parts of the world, is
an Israeli-Saudi desire to enter a consultative phase of diplomacy. So far they
have operated in the Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem triangle.
Above all, by holding hands in
public, Jerusalem and Riyadh are institutionalizing a burgeoning romance. This
will have ramifications.
New Delhi can now play the Iranian string to
its bow without looking over its shoulder for Israeli and Saudi sensitivities,
the latter being a longstanding patron of Pakistan.
It is not nice to feel isolated
in the region. At a recent meeting with the Taleban in Rawalpindi, both Afghan
President Ashraf Ghani and Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, were overseen in the
same room by US and Chinese officials.
Is it over ambitious to spot
seeds of a reliable back channel with Iran and Israel, should the need ever
arise in the uncharted post nuclear deal roadmap?
# # # #
No comments:
Post a Comment