148 d omestic politics
Speaking of the Orient, Abu- al Kalam Azad told me that it is his wish
to see the settlement of Israel’s confl ict with her neighbors and the
establishment of a continuous and whole hearted cooperation be-
tween all the countries of the Orient. When I remarked that this is
also Israel’s desire and that we [are] perpetually making eff orts to this
end, [Abul] Kalam Azad informed me that during the conversations
he has had, in the course of the last three years, with the Arab leaders
he has never ceased to explain to them that Israel is a factual reality
which has to be recognized. [He] met the Arab Chiefs in India, Egypt
and other parts of the world and describing his attitude towards the
Israeli question, he pointed out to them that, as a Muslim, he would
have preferred that Palestine be remaining in the hands of the Arabs
and that there should not be a state of Israel. But as an Oriental
statesman he cannot help realizing that the interests of his country
and of the whole East compel him to be realistic and to see facts as
they are. It is in this spirit that he talked to the Arab leaders and that
he supported Nehru’s suggestion to the Indian government for the
recognition of Israel. [He] mentioned that his understanding attitude
in this connection enabled Nehru to enforce the Government’s deci-
sion in a country like India where there are 40 million Muslims,
without giving rise to hostile reactions. Abu- El Kalam Azad added
that he very much regrets that his friends and co- religionists, the
Pakistanis, do not follow India’s example and that they still cling to
religious fanat i cism and support the Arab’s intransigence.... Before
taking leave, I told the Minister of Education that I hope there will
soon be an exchange of diplomatic representatives between Israel
and India. Abu- El Kalam Azad replied that, to the best of his knowl-
edge, the Indian government has no objections against [sic].^30In short, while he was not happy with the establishment of Israel, Azad
was realistic enough to accept its existence and supported India normal-
izing relations with the Jewish state.
However, Brecher’s personal interviews with various Indian personali-
ties led him to a diff erent conclusion. He wrote in 1959: “India’s staunch
support for the Arab states in their confl ict with Israel and its refusal to
establish normal diplomatic relations with the Jewish state... were
largely due to Azad’s advice.”^31 Subsequently, he elaborated this point in
The New States of Asia. The visit of Walter Eytan to New Delhi in early 1952