introduction 3January 1992 that one can speak of “relations” and debate the infl uence
of one upon the foreign- policy interests and calculations of the other.
Despite the eventual emergence of widespread support, India’s Israel
policy never enjoyed unanimous support within the country. The issue
was fi rst discussed in the Indian Constituent Assembly in December
1947, more than fi ve months before the establishment of Israel.^3 Since
then, the offi cial Indian policy regarding normalization and India’s atti-
tude toward Israel has come under close public scrutiny and criticism.
Some of the most acrimonious debates in the Indian parliament revolved
around Israel. More than any other foreign- policy agenda, the recogni-
tion of Israel and, subsequently, the establishment of diplomatic relations
with it preoccupied the Indian lawmakers. The absence of relations be-
came a powerful instrument through which the opposition could vent
their disapproval and anger, and such a stance should not be dismissed
as a po liti cal gimmick.
The Indian leaders were equally aware that their position regarding
normalization was rather weak and untenable. Over the years, a number
of them admitted that relations should have been established immedi-
ately after Nehru’s decision to recognize Israel in September 1950. Dur-
ing his meeting with the visiting Israeli diplomat Gideon Rafael in 1961,
the Indian prime minister conceded that very point.^4 Likewise, his close
confi dant Krishna Menon told Michael Brecher that if India “had sent
an ambassador at that time [that is, soon after recognition] there would
have been no diffi culties.”^5 Morarji Desai, who was prime minister from
1977 to 1979, refl ected similar sentiments.^6 In the wake of normalization,
Indian intellectuals argued that had relations been normalized in the
1950s, the hype and expectations surrounding the 1992 decision would
have been prevented.^7
The unfriendliness toward Israel contradicted the traditional Indian
attitude toward Judaism. Historically, anti- Semitism has been alien in
Indian culture. Theologically, Hinduism can and did coexist with Juda-
ism without much diffi culty, in part because of their mutual suspicion
and opposition to conversion. As a nonproselytizing religion, Judaism does
not threaten Hinduism. This is in contrast to the other two Semitic reli-
gions, Christianity and Islam, for whom converting others into their faith
remains a cardinal theological goal. Furthermore, at the height of the
Nazi persecution a number of Eu ro pe an Jews took refuge in India, and
amid the nationalist struggle against the British, Nehru, as the leader of
the Indian National Congress (or Congress Party), was instrumental in