Column

The significance of Foreign Minister SM Krishna’s three-day visit to Israel and Palestine last week may take a while to sink in only because it was kept low-key to avoid raising political hackles at home.
The Ministry of External Affairs may be actually relieved, if not pleased, that the Indian media did not draw too much attention to Krishna’s two days in Israel or go into embarrassing details of his interactions. On this historic visit — the first by an External Affairs Minister in a decade — the journalists were unusually diplomatic, discreet and even cautious in their reporting. It was a visit conspicuously lacking in fanfare.
Doubtless, there are important political sections that favour deeper India-Israeli ties. Compulsions of realpolitik make a close relationship with Israel both inevitable and necessary, regardless of India’s historical bonds with the Arab world. However, political correctness mandated that the government keep its ties with Israel such that it does not arouse the hostility of ‘progressive’ sections at home; and, of the opponents of Zionism abroad.
It is no secret that the National Democratic Alliance government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was all for deepening the relationship with Israel. This was not only because of the BJP’s own inclinations towards Israel. It was also because in the matter of defence and security, particularly counter-terrorism, New Delhi felt that joining hands with Tel Aviv would be to India’s advantage.
However, the BJP, even with a Prime Minister of Vajpayee’s acceptability could not afford to be seen as leading India into an embrace with Israel. More so, when Israel is not perceived as a “normal state” by those opposed to its sponsoring of terrorism in the Arab world. Anna Lindh —Sweden’s charismatic foreign minister who may have become prime minister but for her assassination — was an uncompromising critic of Israel’s policy of extra-territorial executions.
In a West that obfuscates the truth about Israeli brutalities, Lindh was outspoken. In an interview (2001) to this journalist — which was widely quoted by the world’s leading newspapers — she was scathing in her indictment of the then Israeli government. “It makes no sense to have a dialogue with the Sharon government,” she said, and agreed that Sharon’s “record of war crimes” has no “parallel in post-war history”.
Even so, defence and security interests dictated that India do business with Israel. Therefore, the UPA of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh decided to build on what the NDA had achieved while, at the same time, keeping down the political content of the relationship. Both sides know this is the way it has to be.
A lot of military high technology, which the US cannot directly sell to India, comes via Israel; and, our armed forces need the range of advanced equipment, such as air defence systems and missiles, that can be bought only from Israel.
In addition, the close but unobtrusive intelligence cooperation between the two countries, as part of the war on terror, was strengthened by the terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008. Another element, as Krishna told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is India wanting to import gas from Israel.
Beyond these strategic tracks, India has much to learn, and gain, from Israel in agriculture, but also other areas. Therefore, closer economic cooperation and a free-trade agreement may not be put off for too long. Israel now feels encouraged enough to open a consulate in Bangalore this year, although India has desisted from inviting the Israeli president, prime minister or foreign minister, who would jump at the chance of a visit.
Just as neither side openly talks of an Israeli dignitary’s visit to India, there was never mention of India’s support to the Palestine cause or voting against Israel on resolutions in the UN Security Council. Another issue emphasised by silence is Iran — where the international community has failed to check Israeli depredations. In contrast, India has friendly relations with Iran based on civilisational links and economic logic and imports over a third of its oil from that country.
No one expects Iran to figure in high-level talks to strengthen India-Israel cooperation. By the same token, India is not expected to support Israel’s transgressions beyond its borders. Therefore, it is shocking that India’s External Affairs Minister should hail Israel as a partner in the fight against global terrorism — as he did during his talks with the Israeli Prime Minister. Surprisingly, the media has not highlighted this faux pas. Nor has it been asked who is responsible for this blunder, and how our Foreign Minister said what he ought not to have said.
Krishna going to Israel is a bold step. It signals that India no longer has to keep ties with Israel out of public view for fear of offending sections at home or blocs abroad. The Arab countries, too, may come to accept the openness this suggests provided we don’t put the wrong foot forward. Or worse, as Krishna did, put his foot in his mouth and say the opposite of what is both avowed and unstated policy.