domestic politics 157
During the cold war, Pakistan and its diplomatic activities off ered In-
dian leaders and academics a useful foreign- policy logic to camoufl age
the domestic angle. Though extremely important, it enabled them to
avoid highlighting the internal dimension. The absence of relations and
increasing unfriendliness toward Israel was squarely blamed on Paki-
stan and its “mischief” in the Arab and Islamic world. One can even call
Pakistan India’s whipping boy on Israel. The Israeli consul, Yosef Has-
sin, was not wrong when he accused India of competing with Pakistan for
favors from Arab countries.^63 But such an excessive preoccupation en-
abled India’s leaders and scholars alike to ignore the more pressing do-
mestic dimension of nonrelations. Hence, when he met the se nior Israeli
diplomat Gideon Rafael in late 1961, Prime Minister Nehru could blame
Pakistan and the Arabs for nonrelations without having to address the
domestic angle.^64
Even those who harped on the domestic dimensions of U.S. policy on
Israel con ve niently sidestepped the similar dilemma faced by India.
“Vote- bank politics” are relevant only in the understanding of U.S. Mid-
dle East policy but cannot be used in the Indian context. The grim pic-
ture painted by John Mearsheimer and Stephan Walt about the power of
the “Israel Lobby” has often resonated in India and is widely commented
upon. In the words of one columnist: “In the Islamic world there was lit-
tle doubt that the rich and po liti cally powerful Jewish lobby in the US
was, to a great extent, dictating the superpower’s agenda when it came to
resolving the Israeli- Palestinian confl ict.”^65 During the 2000 U.S. presi-
dential elections, it was observed that Vice President Al Gore “and his
wife need the support of the American Jewish lobby and Mr. Clinton is
giving signs that he will soon have to bend to the imperatives of domestic
politics.”^66 Such arguments are never internalized and used to examine
India’s Middle East policy.
Indian Muslims do not have an or ga ni za tion similar to the America
Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC). Nor is lobbying a legal and or-
ga nized endeavor in India, as it is on Capitol Hill. This does not diminish
the eff ectiveness of Muslims as a pressure group, especially regarding Mid-
dle Eastern matters. Commenting on the role played by Jews in shaping
U.S. policies, one U.S. congressman observed: “Israel succeeds in the Con-
gress for the simple reason. Two or three percent of the voters care intensely
about it and the rest are uninformed and don’t care.”^67 This is equally true
for the Muslims of India, but it is not po liti cally correct to draw a favor-
able parallel between the Jews of America and the Muslims of India.
vip2019
(vip2019)
#1