India and Israel are often likened to each other, but it is Pakistan that Israel resembles the most
Much is made these days of the apparent likeness between India and Israel. Both are supposed to be modern democracies. Both, it is pointed out, are also fighting Islamic terrorism. But this is a superficial comparison. There is no dearth of modern democracies in the post-Cold War world, and no dearth of nations fighting Islamic terror either, post-9/11. For two nations to be considered alike, they ought to be similar in ways that are more fundamental and, at the same time, that also set them apart from other nations.
It is not India but Pakistan that shares a number of such traits with Israel.
Violent partition
Both Pakistan and Israel were carved out through partitions of historically and culturally unified territories within a year of each other: Pakistan in August 1947 and Israel in May 1948. Pakistan was created by splitting the Indian subcontinent, tearing asunder people who, while belonging to different religions, shared a common cultural heritage and had together fought their war of Independence. It created fissures even within ethnic communities — Punjabis in the west, Bengalis in the east and, a year later, Kashmiris in the north. The same happened when Israel was carved out of historical Palestine, dividing Arabs to the west of the Jordan river for the first time.
Two, neither partition was peaceful. Hundreds of thousands of people had to leave their homes in both instances to become refugees in what, just days earlier, had been their own land. Pakistan’s creation saw more than 10 million people migrate on either side of the border, many driven away by their neighbours. Nearly a million are believed to have died in the pogroms that ensued. While eloquent espousals of nationalism and patriotism poured out of leaders at bully pulpits, the slit throats of citizens spattered blood in the streets.
Israel’s creation was similarly gory. More than 700,000 Palestinians were hounded out of their homes by Zionist militias in what the Arabs have since called the Nakba, or catastrophe. Thousands perished. Many migrated to West Bank, Gaza and the refugee camps of Lebanon, Jordan and the Sinai; many others fled to Europe and the United States — places from where harried Jews had been moving to Palestine in preceding decades to escape persecution. One diaspora replaced another, and Arab became the new Jew of the West. The irony was profound.
Three, neither Pakistan nor Israel has clearly defined its borders since its creation. It’s not just that their neighbours don’t agree with them, but both these nations have themselves stopped short of stating precisely where they want their borders to be. While India categorically specifies the borders it claims in Kashmir, Pakistan’s position is ambiguous at best. It calls the portion it conquered in 1947-48 “Azad Kashmir” (Independent Kashmir), but Pakistan’s army exercises even more control over the lives of Azad Kashmiris than over the average Pakistani. It even has an Azad Kashmir Regiment — headquartered in Punjab.
Israel has also desisted from stating exactly how large or small it intends to be. For more than 20 years, even the Palestinian Authority has recognised the so-called Green Line — which defined Israeli territory until the 1967 war — as the international border subject to a two-state solution (that would create a Palestinian state). Israel itself, however, does not recognise the Green Line anymore. Nor does it say where it would draw its own Line, all the while grabbing more land in the West Bank for Jewish settlements.
Four, both Pakistan and Israel have fought wars of aggression against neighbours. The India-Pakistan conflicts of 1947-48, 1965 and 1999 were the result of Pakistani aggression. It also waged a proxy war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, a misadventure from which it is yet to dissociate itself. Israel’s wars are still more numerous. It attacked Egypt in 1956, Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza on numerous occasions. Gaza remains under Israeli siege even today.
Dominated by religion, military
Five, being born in blood and bred in wars, both Pakistan and Israel have developed societies and polities that are dominated by religion and the military. The green uniform has been at the helm of Pakistan’s affairs for nearly half its independent history, and lords over politicians even when not formally in charge. Its hand has been strengthened by the appropriation of Islam as a political ideology, and the nation is effectively run by a nexus of generals and mullahs.
Israel’s military has similarly clawed its way into the heart of the nation’s society and politics in the name of protecting its Jewish character. Making a name for yourself in wars is the surest way to a successful political career, ministerial posts and prime ministership. Just like Pakistan, Israel seems to be run by a league of generals and rabbis.
Six, both Pakistan and Israel nurture exclusivist national identities, concerned more with who does not belong to them than with who does. Created as a homeland for Muslims, Pakistan has always treated Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Muslims as second-class citizens. But that isn’t all.
Various categories of Muslims — migrants from India, Ahmadis, Shias, Baluchis and so on — have also found it difficult to integrate into Pakistani society and are perpetually blamed for all its social and political ills.
Israel was created as a homeland for Jews, and it treats Arabs as second-class citizens. But many Jews too — black Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Russian-origin Jews and so on — face rampant discrimination. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis of Jewish ancestry are simply not considered Jews by law and struggle to be a part of Israeli society.
Benedict Anderson has called nations “imagined communities,” comprising people who share a deep bond of unity even with those they have never met or do not personally know. But Pakistan and Israel exhibit an extraordinary lack of imagination in the construction of their nationhood. Exclusivist identities, religious chauvinism, military dominance and a history of belligerence have rendered them societies that are perpetually at war — with their neighbours and with themselves. Their own uncertainty over their borders betrays this existential insecurity.
That is where India differs from both these nations. Imagined as a country of infinite communities, we have largely remained true to this founding principle. Muslims running away from riots in Gujarat or Assam, Biharis fleeing persecution in Maharashtra and Northeasterners escaping prejudice in South India are still exceptions in a nation that culturally and constitutionally believes in diversity. This belief, more than anything else, is the source of our national identity.
Let us hope that is how, and who, we remain.
(Saif Shahin is a doctoral research scholar in political communication at the University of Texas, Austin, U.S.)
Keywords: India-Pakistan relations, Islamic terrorism, India, Israel, Indian politics, Israel politics
Just like Meles Zenawi and Isaias Afewerki worked together against
Dictator Mengitsu Hailemariam but became bitter enemies, Jinnah and
Nehru worked together but you know the result. Both did not get along
well and we now know which country Ethiopia or Eritrea is better off.
It is no accident that Pakistan would become a military dictatorship
and terrorist rogue state. Jinnah blackmailed the West that "Russia
is not very far away." Eritrea did the same after 9/11 but Bush did
not fall for it. Somalia is like Afghanistan but in many ways it is
like Pakistan because Ethiopia and Somalia fought a war when Somalia
invaded Ethiopia just like Pakistan did India in previous wars. Both
were ruled by Military Juntas who poisoned civil society and
doublegamed US and USSR. Somalia collapsed and is now disintegrated.
Pakistan is next if it doesn't quit meddling in Afghanistan.
I would not compare Pakistan to Israel but to Eritrea or Somalia. The
logical conclusion would be that India is like Ethiopia. Amharas are
dominant in Ethiopia, while Hindis rule India. In Pakistan,Punjabis
rule while in Eritrea, the Tigrinya rule. Both are countries with
4000+ year old historical civilizations, both have border disputes
with neighbors, India with Pakistan and China, Ethiopia with Somalia
and Eritrea, both are the dominant powers in their own regions, and
both are fast growing economies. Pakistan like Eritrea was created by
colonial powers and ruled separately but unlike Eritrea which fought
a 30 war to gain independence from Ethiopia, Pakistan was handed over
by the British, but I think Jinnah would taken up arms and fought an
insurgency had Congress and British not agreed to Jinnah's demands.
Had Jinnah survived he would have been a dictator like Isaias
Afewerki and Robert Mugabe. Both Eritrea and Pakistan are rogue
testates backing al-Shabaab and Taliban respective.
Peter J. Asirvatham's comments (Aug 31, 2012 at 10:31 IST) are spot-
on. There is superficial similarity between Israel and Pakistan at
best. Yeah, Pakistan is "supported" by the US like Israel, but during
the cold war, India was (in my opinion, unfortunately) in the "Non
Aligned Movement", which is code-word for "Non-aligned with the US and
Israel".
Here are some more differences:
- Israel has been a democracy from day 1, while Pakistan is controlled
by the powerful military and a intolerant, theocratic set of leaders.
No Rabbi in Israel can issue an equivalent of a fatwa that will be
carried out by the faithful.
- The width of Israel at one point is 9 miles!! And Israel is
surrounded by blood-thirsty, homicidal maniacal enemies. Pakistan
borders India- a democracy, not controlled by theocratic not
controlled by theocratic mullahs; nor by crazed dictators. All of
Israel's neighbors seek to do Israel harm, and they would if they
could.
The comparison is ludicrous, to put it mildly.
Mr Vishwas & Mr. Asirvatham
You forget the fact that Israel's creation and its location in Palestine was a result of
the Balfour Declarations of 1917 when Britain was the colonial power in that
region. Britain allowed and encouraged European Jews to move into Palestine.
Israel has been created by subtle and not so subtle forms of ethnic cleansing of
the native Arab population. A better comparison is between the Israel of today and
the South Africa of the apartheid era when blacks were forced out of ancestral land
and moved to Bantustans. Can any of you gentlemen tell me why European anti
semitism has to be paid for by Arab blood ?
As regards the UN votes that Mr. Asirvatham refers to, well, you might also wish to
point out that India voted AGAINST the UN partition plan, despite the state of Israel
making threats to the Indian representative at the UN, Ms. Vijaylakshmi Pandit.
Vibrant democracy Mr. Asirvatham ?
One fails to understand the relevance of the author's contrived
argument that Pakistan resembles more to Israel than India! The
author starts with an assumed premise that '"Much is made these
days of the apparent likeness between India and Israel."
In modern days politics, 'much' is not made because of resemblance
but because of needs and strategic reasons!
This article is misleading and irrelevant. It is blatantly biased
especially against the Israelis and the comparison is quite childish.
This kind of comparison can be made with a dozens of other countries
using any number of traits. The Hindu should refrain from publishing
such biased opinions and should instead publish articles or op-eds that
give justice to the multifaceted reality of the conflicts and its
participants.
@ Mohammed Zakir Hussain:
"Islam means peace.How can the term Islamic terrorism (peaceful terrorism) come
into existence?"
Perhaps Islam does not believe in violence, but then there are atleast some
Muslims that do, and that is enough. Ditto for Islam not allowing discrimination of
people on basis of sex, caste, creed etc.
Honestly though, pretty much all religions start out being relatively peaceful and
turn violent and retrograde once they reach a certain "maturity". So, Islam is no
different than the others. What is needed is similar to what is needed for any other
religion - rejuvenation and casting aside old "traditions".
The author talks about the Northeasterners escaping prejudice in South India. They ran from South India due to the fear of annihilation by the "minority" community and they had seen what happened in the Mumbai Azad Maidan "peaceful protest" which triggered the exodus. Otherwise, there was no prejudice in South India against the Northeasterners except may be for some stray icidents (which happen all over the country once in a while against "outsiders" in particular areas). And the author conveniently forgets the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from their own native land. There should be a limit to twisted secularism.
Despite some similiarities, particularly the fundamentalist bias behind both, Israel
and Pakistan are very different.
Consider that the people of Israel did not even come from the region. They were
escaping the Holocaust and persecution in the West and while they claim Israel as
their source, they could not be said to have any cultural connections to those that
were actually living there.
Secondly, Israel started out, despite the Zionist movement behind it, as a secular
state. This not so much in the sense of granting other religions equal right, but in
the more Western fashion of keeping religion out of politics and the Army to a
large extent. This allowed it to modernize. The return of orthodox fundamentalism
to Israel is slowly causing it to move in the direction of Pakistan, especially with
regard to women's rights. It remains to be seen if both will converge.
How the author has selectively chosen half-truths from history to
build his case; to vilify Israel! By magnifying some issues that are
common between Pakistan and Israel, the author has made issues we
Indians face appear small and insignificant. The article is far from
an eye-opener on history as some readers here have mentioned.
With regard to partition; whereas the decision of partitioning the
Indian subcontinent was between Britain, India and the yet-to-be born
Pakistan, in the case of Palestine, the United Nations had to
intervene. And thanks to the UN vote, of 33 in favour and 13 against,
Palestine was to be partitioned between Israel and Palestine. And
unlike Britain implementing the partition in the Indian subcontinent,
she vacated Palestine without implementing her responsibility. All
hell broke loose with Britain’s withdrawal, and the fledgling Israel
had to take on the might of large regular Arab armies to fight for its
survival!
And unlike Pakistan which has one “arch enemy”- India, Israel has the
whole Arab and Muslim world which is bent on “wiping Israel off the
map of the world.”
Pakistan has been ruled by military dictators, Israel is a vibrant
democracy.
"The Hindu" has always been against the US and Israel. The above article is just an opinion of a writer and not a news. Comparing one country to another country leads nowhere. What is important is how well the countries co-exist now rather that pondering over the past.
Is there anything wrong in having good relationship with Israel? Certainly not! We can go on arguing on this. I would say that the opinion of this writer has been neatly put up.
The writer has aptly concluded with the reiteration of unity in diversity as the constitutional and cultural basis of India's nationhood. India is not just an idea that can be explained by Benedict Anderson's theory of 'Imagined Communities'. India is a composite civilizational entity that has evolved and taken shape over millenia of human endeavour, conflict and concoourse, a characteristic it shares with other nations in the region. As has been rightly stressed in the article it is our belief in that that holds us together and will hopefully some day bring us all in the region together into a comity of nations.
@ Mr. Anupam Sinha
Funny you had to read the whole passage till the last paragraph to know the religion of the the author.You could have just read his name at the beginning of the article.
Just saying...
The best part of the article is that it is so smooth to read, unlike many other articles which are like a drag. I enjoyed reading it and I even learnt a lot about Pakistan and Israel. This article has the power to open the eyes of the world. Very well written. Bravo !
@ Vishwas: I cant believe that many readers here lack the knowledge about the history of creation of Israel. There was no such state on the map before 1948. UK cunningly and maliciously used UN against the will of Arab states to create a Jewish exclusivist state out of most fertile of lands in the Arabian Peninsula (not a desert!). Millions of Palestinians who used to live there peacefully for thousands of years were ethnically cleansed by the Zionist militia. The God's Chosen People then continued to annex more and more of the Promised land and settle Jews from all over the world there with active support both financially & militarily from US and the West. Palestinians now have to bear the punishment of the sins of Germany & its allies which were responsible for the Holocaust, for many decades facing apartheid & persecution. How can a country call itself democratic & secular when the basic premise on which it was built was clearly religious & discriminatory. Read Ilan Pappe.
The author towards the end gives example of Muslims running from Gujarat
and Assam but leaves out Kashmiri Brahmins running from Kashmir... Funny
how I knew the religion of the author as soon as a I observed the
omission. Just saying...
Nice comparison.But mind knowing the reason behind the partitions?
Israel was made forcefully with Jews gathering from all around the world.Nowhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem (or even the Ottoman Empire) were Jews present before their migration.They systematically occupied the land and forcefully pushed the Arabs out of their lands.
Pakistan, on the other hand was made with the consent of both communities.BOTH COMMUNITIES suffered the atrocities during partition unlike the case of Israel which killed the Arabs for occupation.
Secondly, Britons divided our country and wanted us to keep fighting forever. Their cousins, the Americans did the same and wanted the Arabs to be engaged in fighting...FOR ETERNITY!
And lastly, the main difference:
India & Paksitan = Partition
Israel & Arabs = FORCEFUL OCCUPATION!!!
The author has made a flawed comparision. Pakistan is a unique case
and cannot be compared to Israel. The correct comparision for Israel
is with Taiwan who both have very similar reasons for existence. Both
are existing primarily because of the United States. Both the Chinese
& the Arabs are against the creation of Israel & Taiwan respectively.
The USA gets tremendous leverage in West Asia and North Asia because
of Israel & Taiwan respectively. Both countries are democracies and
are technologically advanced countries. As far as India is concerned,
most Indians don't have any issues with the existence of Pakistan and
Pakistan has received only opportunistic support from the USA, when it
wanted to take on the soviets or the taliban. Hence, the comparision
between Pakistan & Israel is very flawed.
This is an excellent conclusion reached by the author. However, where India and Israel have much in common is in the promotion of meritocracy. Unlike Pakistan, where fuedal landlords and people with wealth reach the top, India allows a common man with talent to reach the top. This is what produces Narayanamurthy! The emphasis on arts and culture is a contrast to the Wahabi model in Pakistan, where such things are banned.Israel has not actively pursued terrorism as a State policy, as Pakistan does in its neighbourhood. Finally, Pakistan is a failed state and Israel is not!
Picking few facts does not make pak and Israel alike and author does not misguide the people with self conclusion.
Not worth of doctoral research scholar.
An excellent comparison. Awesome logical development. wonderful article.
Fine language. Subtle style of writing. A nice read. The article hasnt
just projected information but also provided knowledge. in fact a good
piece of comparative writing. I loved the way with which Anderson was
cited and linked to both the failed state. Kudos to Saif Shahin. Saif, I
have been working on decline of nation and national identity for some
time...My specialization is on Indian diaspora if you wish to contact
drop an email.
Its nice to be in a tolerant society. Diversity has made the world to
look up at India.
Pakistan was created for the dream of Mr Jinnah who himself was not
sure about what he is doing. He back stabbed the congress and India
. We hindues forgot the sins commited by them in braking India and
decided to stay a country where humanity has more value than religion.
The thing is we didn't want to throw them they stabbed us and created
a divide and now its again fueling the Muslims to do the same again.
The least they can do is give Kashmir back and demilitarize itself to
create peace in the region. Because of its muslim ambition its the
most na pak country in the world.
superb in content, a great article to read. It made me more patriotic.
Long live India.
Definitely a very logical and natural comparison between the two countries. These are the only two countries which were created on religious background and identity.
There is a great misconception among the academicians that India and Israel are the "natural allies" and this has been even asked in the UPSC exams but after this elaborate and logical comparison by Mr. Saif , the misconception will definitely be ironed out.
very thoughtful interpretation with logical references
of the subject ..great.
What a bunch of Hokey. Hindu should publish such raving opinions in the Sunday readers opinion section. Israel and Pakistan could not be farther than each other. The author spins out a marginal similarity in the creation of the states into various half-truths. This way one can find a set of similarities between India and Finland (Both have socialist leaning political systems, Both had a somewhat friendly non-aligned relationship with the Soviet Union, Both have people who like to eat fish and loved Nokia phones). What the author avoids are the innumerable successes of Israel - the only democracy in the middle-east, the creativity that comes from the (defense trained) engineers there, the dogged determination to succeed and make the desert bloom. Israel has done what it has to do to protect the Jewish people who have been driven out of the middle-east, and hounded in Europe for centuries and maintain a safe home for them. Please balance such opinions with an input from the other side.
As an exponent of International Relations and Strategic Studies for over 30 years, I would like to submit two points one each on India-Pakistan, and Israel-Palestine. On the former, the bete noire between the two is the Kashmir dispute, a dispute created by Jawaharlal Nehru during the 1947-48 war by ordering a unilateral ceasefire just when the Pakistani invaders were on the run hotly chased by the Indian army. This facilitated MA Jinnah to consolidate his hold on Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. India on its part has kept the problem alive as witnessed at Tashkent and Shimla, especially the latter where we could easily settled the issue on our terms since we held all the aces. India does not want to resolve Kashmir due to vote bank concerns. On the latter, every meeting between Israel and Palestine to resolve their six disputes has failed because of one factor - Hamas' flat refusal to recognise Israel, even though Fatah has. The OIC should force Hamas to change and thus resolve the matter.
brilliantly written.. Have never read so carefully articulated description of two nations reeling under the regime of religion and military.
Rightly said.
A nation which believes that a set of people are unique only because they belong to a certain religion can never claim to be democratic. The time Pakistan declared itself an Islamic country it's downfall started. It started to believe that Islam is the last word and this alienated the non Islamic citizens. It is the same way Israel acts too. It fails to integrate with non Jews.
One can only wish that they grow out of the self imposed prison that they are trapped in. This world would indeed be a better place then.
Israel was created as the only homeland for Jews around the world who
were stateless for many centuries/millenia while Pakistan was created as
an Islamic state for muslims of the sub continent and is one of many
Islamic nations on the earth.Israel has many neighbours who want to
annihilate them. Minorities in Israel fare better than in Pakistan. How
are the two countries very similar?
I have no idea what exactly the author is trying to communicate. He has selectively
applied the comparison between Israel and Pakistan. The fact is that Pakistan
behaviour is not different from any other Islamic nation. You only have to replace
'Pakistan' with, say, Saudi Arabia and re-read the article. They all pose themselves as
the saviours of Islam.
The most fundamental difference between Israel and Pakistan is that Israel has a real
existential threat from ALL its neighbours while Pakistan has no such threat from any
of its neighbours, yet it behaved as the aggressor.
Islam means peace.How can the term Islamic terrorism (peaceful terrorism) come into existence? They contradict each other.Most of the writers lack knowledge or research in Islam and would want to write books on them.This kind of phenomenon would set Muslims as bad examples and would create unrest in the society.What's happening in Pakistan is due to greed and mismanagement of the Pakistan's governing system.Islam treats every human being equal irrespective of race,creed,sex or religion.
An article written to perfection. It is mainly some right-wing Hindus and some zealots,businessmen and politicians from Israel and USA who try to compare Israel and India unnecessarily. Israel has committed so many crimes against humanity that it can only exist by threatening/bullying/attacking all its neighbors with the support of some Western allies especially USA -- Israel does not seem to have the capability of co-existing with its neighbors in a peaceful manner by settling the issues in an amicable way.
Very ingenious analysis. one more similarity I would point out is the chronic reliance of both countries on US financial aid for both military and civilian purposes, despite which both countries appear to blackmail their benefactor shamelessly and with impunity.
This article should have been entitled "how israel does not resemble Pakistan," if there was any comparison, at all!
Fundamentals itself argue for the same.
Pakistan is a failed state, ISRAEL is a technologically and militarily advanced nation.
After some months, the Hindu will bring an article "How Bihar resembles Bangladesh" because of huge unemployment, lack of law and order and out emmigration!
A very nice read. This makes me think on why Isreal is a economic powerhouse and
Pakistan is not? Culture? Geo-politics? Most probably, Pakistan's obsession with
India.
An excellent and very accurate comparison. One could add close relations with the US as another point of similarity.
a very coherent and logical assessment...
which unfortunately many will deliberately choose to ignore!
Please Email the Editor