international factors 179the Palestine National Council (the Palestinian parliament- in- exile) in
Damascus. This was the fi rst time that an Indian delegation was present
at a PNC meeting.^72 In November 1988, India became one of the fi rst
countries to recognize the state of Palestine proclaimed at the Algiers
meeting of the PNC.
Considering these developments, Indo- Palestinian relations can be
divided into three broad phases: the prepartition years, the period be-
tween the partition of Palestine and the emergence of the PLO in 1964,
and the post- 1964 phase. India’s position on partition of Palestine was
one of vehement opposition to territorial division along religious lines,
and it explained its support for the Arabs in terms of self- determination
and secularism. The establishment of Israel fundamentally challenged and
slowly changed this worldview. The Arab- Israeli war of 1948 and subse-
quent developments revealed the absence of any viable Arab leadership
and the onset of inter- Palestinian and inter- Arab rivalries and schisms.
Hence in the second phase, India’s policy was one of ambiguity. While
generally supporting the Arabs, it left the details undefi ned, except for
the right of refugees to return enshrined in UN General Assembly reso-
lution 194. This trend was largely a refl ection of the prevailing Arab
thinking on the whole issue and continued even after the formation of
the PLO. It was only after the October 1973 war and the Arab summit in
Algiers that the empowerment of the PLO truly began. India then estab-
lished formal ties with the PLO and made it an important plank of its
Middle East policy.
It broadly supported the Palestinian position on a host of issues, in-
cluding self- determination, po liti cal rights, and statehood. On the sensi-
tive issue of refugee rights, India sided with the Palestinians.^73 It diff ered
with the Israeli position that the Arab states and people could not escape
from their responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem.^74 As the
offi cial statement issued at the time of its recognition of Israel declared,
both sides diff ered in their “attitudes” toward various issues including Je-
rusalem, borders, and refugees.^75 Its recognition of Israel “does not mean
that there is no diff erence between India’s attitude and that of Israel over
questions like the status of Jerusalem and Israel’s frontiers. These ques-
tions would be judged by India on merits and due regard would be given
to Arab claims.”^76
Regarding the territorial limits of Israel, in 1967 India felt it necessary
to highlight the importance of partition resolution 181 and insisted that
under the UN partition plan, “the Jewish State was to get approximately