The United Progressive Alliance government's policy towards West Asia is dictated by its anxiety to keep the “politically influential Muslim vote bloc” in good humour, thus forcing it to walk a “tight rope” and refrain from engaging “too deeply” with the region. This is the recurring assessment sent to headquarters by confidential U.S. Embassy cables, accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks. New Delhi's reactions to Hamas's election victory in 2006, to Israel's attacks on Lebanon later that year, and to its air strikes on Gaza in 2008 are all interpreted through this lens.
‘Gutless’
Communications to Washington from senior American diplomats in the New Delhi Embassy constantly portray India's West Asia policy as being hostage to the Muslim factor in domestic politics. In its bid not to antagonise Muslim voters, the cables explained, the government was forced to play down its “strategic relationship” with Israel.
In one raw cable dated March 31, 2006 (58913: confidential), Ambassador David Mulford characterised India's public position on its relations with Israel as “gutless” and lacking in “moral clarity.” “The underlying straddle of meek statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict combined with full-steam-ahead engagement with Israel on practical and strategic matters,” he wrote scathingly, “is unlikely to change. We should not expect any public courage from India anytime soon when it comes to condemning Hamas or reacting on [Ehud] Olmert's recent victory. Pragmatism trumps moral clarity in Delhi's Middle East policy.”
In Mr. Mulford's view, India had “chosen to remain silent” on Mr. Olmert's victory in order “to avoid ruffling Muslim sentiments.” He added: “India will wait until other nations voice their opinions and only then may decide to speak up, if forced or if advantageous to do so, a feature typical of the GOI when it comes to reacting particularly about Middle Eastern issues, given the importance of the Muslim vote bank to the ruling Congress party.”
In a cable dated August 4, 2006 (73697: confidential), a senior U.S. diplomat, Geoff Pyatt, wrote that Indian condemnation of Israeli military actions in Lebanon and Gaza was an attempt to “manage” the Muslim anger over the issue, “conveniently overlooking the increasingly tight security and technology relationship between the two countries.” Another cable, dated December 29, 2008 (184997: confidential), attributed India's strong reaction to Israeli attacks in Gaza to “public consumption.” It was in keeping with “India's past practice of publicly condemning Israeli actions for public consumption, yet privately protecting healthy bilateral relations.”
“The Government of India again walks a tightrope influenced by its election cycle,” the Embassy cable summed up. “It must convey to Israel that it understands Israel's current plight while doing its diplomatic duty to condemn what is seen by many here as oppressive tactics. From time to time Muslim leaders in India organize protests when they feel the GOI has not taken a strong enough stance against Israel during heightened periods of violence, and it is likely that by quickly condemning the air strikes, the Indian government felt it could preempt such demonstrations.”
Keywords: cable58913, cable73697, cable184997, The India Cables, WikiLeaks, Cablegate, West Asia, Muslim countries, UPA government, Muslim vote bank
@Krishna: The Arab League have actually said that they have no position on Kashmir and do not support Pakistan. Infact, almost all Arab and Muslim countries support the Indian position which is that Kashmir issue should be resolved bilaterally. And the US and China have provided much more financial aid to Pakistan than Saudi Arabia ever has. Infact, US and China have provided hard military aid which is much more detrimental to India.
India - GCC trade is reaching $120 Billion a year and only remitances from 8 million expats living there is around $45 Billion a year. This is the biggest economic relationship India has with any other trade bloc in the world. We can make more money from Saudis in trade and remitances than what Saudis give to Pakistan in aid in any year
Is Mulford actually the US Ambassador or the Israeli Ambassador? Why should he interfere in India's stance about a third country?
Among BRIC countries both Brazil and China are admired and respected by most of the third world countries whom they see as Non-interventionist unlike that of western world, Sadly India is squandering its opportunity with its rudderless Foreign policy. The thing is that as the largest democracy in the world India has a better advantage than both China and Brazil to be seen as a Leading light by third-world countries but India seems to be more interested in becoming a Lackey of the United states calling it a 'special relationship', no wonder Britian too did the same , called its relationship with US as 'Special' and served it like a lackey.
Wow! those who dont toe your line are 'gutless' and lack 'moral clarity'? In fact its the US which is bowing to the strong Jewish powerbloc and openly supporting a rogue and a terror nation 'to keep politically influential jews in good humour'!
What Mr. Mulford does not seem to mention is that the US and Israel are not the only countries in the world that India has to deal with.India realizes that its stock would plummet in the Third World (whom it wants to lead) if it went toe-to-toe with Mulford's 'moral clarity' over 'Pragmatism'.Brazil, another aspirant to Third World leadership has already recognized a Palestinian state. Not many Muslims there in Brazil, so why is Brazil going overboard? Yes, Brazil does not have the same kind of military relationship with Israel that India has. But that's no reason for India not to want the weaponry from Israel and the goodwill from the Middle-East.
That is ignorance. India's Middle East policy is based on its need for foreign exchange and most of that comes straight home as 'tax free' at source unlike from Western source. Probably they don't know that more Hindus work in the Middle East than Indian Muslims. It all depends on what you want to hear: EITHER you want to hear what is pleasing to your ears OR you want to hear the truth. But most of the time the first is chosen because truth can be unpleasant and unsavoury. No wonder if this is the type of feedback diplomats send, their rulers will commit blunders after blunders.
I think the India's foreign policy should be dictated by what it perceives to be in it's best interests considering the strategic situation it finds itself in without bothering too much about the views of other countries or groups within in it's own borders. Ties with Israel have benefitted India considerably. Weapons technolgies not provided by other countries have been provided by that country. It should be remembered that the Arab League has consistently sided with Pakistan and wealthy middle east countries like Saudi Arabia have provided financial aid to Pakistan despite India bending over backwards to placate them. I think Indian Muslims are in general more interested in India's future as that affects them direcly and not what happens in far off lands.
Please Email the Editor