India\'s Israel Policy - P. R. Kumaraswamy

the islamic prism 83

East... between Hinduism and Judaism there is a great deal in com-
mon.” Thus the creation of Hindu- Zionist friendship “clearly indicated...
the interests of both parties.”
When the General Assembly deliberated the future of Palestine in
1947, Panikkar became a member of the Indian delegation to the United
Nations. Refl ecting on that period in his 1955 autobiography, he settled
for a sanitized and po liti cally correct version:

On the question of a Jewish State in Palestine, however, my sympa-

thies were not all with the Zionists. The Indian attitude has always

been friendly to the Arabs. While sympathizing with the claims of

the Jews for a national home in Palestine, I thought that this demand

for a State based on religious exclusivism was in the fi rst instance

likely to revive Islamic fanat i cism and secondly was unjust to the

Palestine Arabs.^51

His appointment to the diplomatic corps and Nehru’s cool attitude to-
ward various Israeli overtures partly explain this diluted position. Like
others, he was conscious of po liti cal correctness.^52
The real importance of Panikkar’s memorandum lay in his willing-
ness to underline the diff erence between Hindu and Muslim perceptions
of the Arab- Israeli problem. He perceived “Hindu” support to the Arabs
as a tactical move aimed at forging a Hindu- Muslim unity against for-
eign rule. Following the formation of a Muslim state in the subcontinent,
he was confi dent that this rationale would disappear and thus visualized
a “Hindu” opinion that would be more in de pen dent and sympathetic to-
ward Zionism and Israel. Postpartition events, however, took a diff erent
course. A large portion of Muslims made a deliberate decision to remain
in India, emerging as a powerful and infl uential minority, and their im-
pact was felt on India’s policy toward Israel. Thus, instead of adopting an
overtly Hindu- nationalistic position, as Panikkar had expected, the Con-
gress Party came under greater Islamic infl uence, which shaped Indian
perceptions of the Middle East in general and the Arab- Israeli confl ict in
par tic u lar.
Also, the question of the “Hindu opinion on Palestine” is rather debat-
able. Because of historical and religious reasons, there is an Islamic opin-
ion about and concern regarding Palestine. Like their coreligionists else-
where, Indian Muslims have a sentimental attachment toward the issue.
This is not true for the Hindus. There is neither a need nor a rationale for