140 d omestic politicswith the Arab world... common principles of... secularism.”^5 In 1969,
New Delhi used secularism to justify its nonrelations and argued that it
could not accept the notion that religion could become the basis for
nationality.^6
Even before its formal recognition of the PLO, India described al- Fatah,
the most prominent and powerful Palestinian group headed by Yasser
Arafat, as a secular or ga ni za tion.^7 Najma Heptulla, the grand- niece of
Maulana Azad, clearly articulates this argument when she observes that
Azad, “one of the most prominent and vocal nationalist leaders in India,
was vehemently opposed to the idea of creating a state of Israel in Pales-
tine. It is important to note here that the Maulana’s stand on Israel was in
no way infl uenced by the Muslim sentiments in India. He was fi rm in his
belief that one cannot divide the people on the basis of religion.”^8 Like-
wise, others have argued that at least in the initial years of in de pen dence,
“the Islamic factor did not fi gure prominently in India’s dealing with
Muslim countries.”^9
The notion that India’s Middle East policy could be infl uenced by non-
secular considerations still remains anathema to many. Unfamiliarity
with the Mahatma’s endorsement of Jazirat al- Arab or his recognition of
the prophet Mohammed’s injunction over Islamic holy places serves them
well. As one leading media commentator argues, “The Collected Works of
Mahatma Gandhi as well as Jawaharlal Nehru’s writings belie [the] claim
that India traditionally supported the Palestinian cause on anything
other than its merits.”^10 Suggestions that domestic Islamic considerations
(“vote- bank politics,” in Indian parlance) were taken into account when
Nehru was establishing the foundations of the country’s Middle East pol-
icy is rejected as incorrect, misleading, and a po liti cal conspiracy. It is not
uncommon to fi nd arguments stating that “religious considerations have
not played any role, either in the formulation of India’s [Middle East] pol-
icy on the whole, or in prioritizing foreign policy goals vis-à- vis individual
countries in the context of bilateral relations.”^11 Though it is fashionable
“to criticize Nehru and others of following a pro- Arab policy on account of
‘vote- bank politics,’ religious considerations never played any role in the for-
mulation of the [Middle East] policy.”^12
In their eagerness to dismiss Islamic infl uences, some are forced to
give a clean bill of health to the Hindu nationalists. The Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) is known for its traditional sympathies for Israel. Bilateral rela-
tions took an upward swing when it was in power during 1998 through
- The need to present Indian policy within a secular paradigm was