domestic politics 161the fact that Islam is the common enemy now. It has reassured them
in their own orientation and it gave them more means from abroad
certainly.”^84 There are those who felt that, with the sole exception of the
left, the “bulk of the Indian elite today is utterly unconcerned about
the fate of the Palestinians; it may well be only a matter of time before the
Indian government’s position on the Palestine issue becomes eff ectively
indistinguishable from the general Israel- and U.S.- leaning postures of
most Western Eu ro pe an governments.”^85 In short, they felt that the anti-
Muslim sentiments of the BJP were manifest in both its domestic agenda
and its foreign policy, resulting in its closer ties with Israel!
This anti- Muslim rationale for Indo- Israeli relations eventually boo-
meranged when the INC- led UPA government, which came to power in
May 2004, refused to alter the existing close ties with Israel. Having pre-
sented Indo- Israeli ties as an outcome of the anti- Muslim conspiracy of
the BJP, the communists have become a prisoner of their own paradigm.
The CPI- M leader Sitaram Yechury refl ected this dilemma when he la-
mented that while he could “understand” the previous government seek-
ing closer ties with Israel because the BJP shares “the common hatred for
Muslims and the Arab world... it is a great pity that the Congress and
the UPA government are not conscious of the need to diff erentiate from
this pro- Israeli stance.”^86
When it comes to the domestic factor, two possible conclusions can
be drawn. The Muslim factor played a role in Nehru’s hesitation in rec-
ognizing Israel and the subsequent absence of relations. To a large ex-
tent, this was a continuation of the pro- Arab and pro- Palestinian stand
adopted by the Congress Party since the early 1920s. Similarly, anti-
Muslim sentiments of the Hindu right, especially the Jan Sangh and the
BJP, contributed to their pro- Israeli posture. They were not only critical
of the prolonged absence of relations but warmly welcomed Narasimha
Rao’s decision in 1992 to normalize ties.
The diff erences between these two conclusions, however, are also in-
teresting. Much of the history of Indo- Israeli ties is a study of nonrela-
tions, and these nonrelations were maintained while the Congress Party
was in power. Hence, the Muslim factor played a role in the formulation
of that policy. Despite its pro- Israeli sentiment, the Hindu right was
mainly in opposition and could not be held responsible for either the pro-
longed absence of relations or the normalization in 1992. By the time the
BJP came to power in 1998, bilateral ties were fi rmly in place, with grow-
ing po liti cal, economic, and military relations between the two countries.