symbols such as the national anthem, fl ag, holidays, and dietary laws
explicitly preclude non- Jews from easily identifying themselves with the
state. In this sense ironically like the other countries of the Middle East,
Israel has yet to evolve a territory- based national identity. India is placed
slightly better in this regard. Periodic communal tensions and violence
against minority groups has challenged India’s secular foundations, but
mainstream po liti cal forces, including the nationalist Bharatiya Janata
Party, are formally committed to keeping the country secular. This is
evident when Indian leaders recognize and accommodate the views of
India’s Muslims when dealing with Israel. The Arab minority in Israel,
on the contrary, does not infl uence Israel’s policy toward the Arab world.
This is only one side of the story. Any nuanced understanding of In-
dia’s Israel policy would have to be located in some of the larger similari-
ties shared by both countries. Both countries have more in common than
many care to admit. Placing them in a comparative perspective would
enable us to appreciate not only the post- 1992 developments but also the
dilemma faced by Nehru regarding normalization. Both gained freedom
around the same time: India in August 1947 and Israel the following
May. Despite their recent emergence as sovereign entities, both countries
trace their history and civilization to well before the birth of Christianity.
As Chaim Weizmann taunted the British during the run up to the Bal-
four Declaration, both nations were civilizations long before London and
Paris became cities. And both countries are im mensely proud of their
unique traditions, cultures, and civilizations.
As modern po liti cal entities, both almost treaded the same path. Their
formation not only coincided but also raised similar issues. Their free-
dom was accompanied by partition along religious lines and a resultant
communal bloodbath. They were confronted with hostilities from their
immediate neighbors and their state- building eff orts were complicated
by the infl ux and absorption of a large number of refugees. Both attained
in de pen dence around the same time and from the same imperial power,
Great Britain. As free nations, they were not willing to entangle them-
selves in the Eurocentric cold war, and both consciously pursued a policy
of nonalignment (or nonidentifi cation, as it was known in Israel). In the
early years, both countries had a similar worldview; on a host of interna-
tional issues such as the Korean crisis, the recognition of communist
China, and the larger cold war, both Nehru and Ben- Gurion adopted iden-
tical views. In the early years, there was considerable mutual goodwill
toward each other.
introduction 9