176 i n t e r n a t i o n a l f a c t o r sNot satisfi ed with Israel’s po liti cal exclusion, the fourth NAM summit in
Algeria in 1973 called on the international community, “particularly the
United States of America, to refrain from supplying Israel with weapons,
and from any po liti cal, economic or fi nancial support, which would en-
able it to continue its aggressive and expansionist policy.”^53 It welcomed
the decision of some African countries to break off diplomatic ties with
Israel. Demanding similar moves from others, it called on the member
countries “to work for a boycott of Israel in the diplomatic, economic,
military and cultural fi elds and in the sphere of maritime and air traffi c
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations
Charter.”^54 In short, the NAM unreservedly endorsed the Arab boycott of
Israel. Given the post- 1973 economic leverage of the Arabs and po liti cal
clout of the Arab League, India had little choice regarding the boycott,
even if it wished otherwise.
The other Arab input into India’s foreign policy is the Palestinian
factor.
The Palestinian Factor
The long absence of ties with Israel might give an impression
that India had a Palestinian, not Israeli, policy. The Indo- Arab contacts
and pronouncements dating back to the Mandate years add to such
claims. During the freedom struggle, Indian nationalists had contacts
with Arab leaders of Mandate Palestine, including the mufti of Jerusa-
lem. Since in de pen dence, the Palestinian factor fi gured prominently in
India’s bilateral relations with countries of the Middle East and in multi-
lateral forums such as the NAM. Above all, India’s only offi cial publica-
tion on the Arab- Israeli confl ict was curiously titled India and Palestine:
The Evolution of a Policy. Published following the widespread uproar in
the country over the June 1967 war, it traces and justifi es Indian policy
toward Israel through a Palestinian prism. In their enthusiasm to exhibit
their pro- Palestinian credentials, both the government and in de pen dent
scholars often claim that India “was the fi rst non- Arab state to recognize
the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of Palestinian people.”^55
This honor, however, actually goes to China, which recognized the PLO
as far back as 1965.
In any case, the history of India’s eventual recognition of the PLO indi-
cates a diff erent trajectory. Formal and offi cial contacts between India