Syllabus:
(iv) Imperialism and free trade: Rise of neo-imperialism; Arab World - Egypt, Arab Nationalism, Oil Imperialism (ii) Africa - Colonization , Partition, (iii) Turkey - Disintegration of Empires [emergence of nationalities across the world -Nation State Systems]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Imperialism and Colonialism have long employed as instruments of national policy.” Comment. [1982, 20 Marks]
“If imperialism is viewed as a phase of the struggle for power between States, its result must be judged in terms of its role in power politics.” Comment. [1984, 20 Marks]
Critically examine the socio-cultural and economic impact of migration in Europe and Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries. [2014, 20 Marks]
“The commercial and industrial interests created a veritable hothouse atmosphere in Europe for the establishment of colonies.” Critically examine. [2014, 10 Marks]
One great effect of the geographical discoveries of the 15th century was “the growing belief that America, Asia and Africa were to be used extensively for the benefit of Europeans.” Comment. [1998, 20 Marks]
“The sponsors of the overseas expansion of Europe were national monarchies.” Comment. [1992, 20 Marks]
“Portugal and Spain, the pioneers in world exploration, were also first in the race to conquer overseas countries.” Comment [1999, 20 Marks]
“Colonialism not only deprives a society of its freedom and its wealth, but of its very character, leaving its people intellectually and morally disoriented.” [2013, 20 Marks] - Effects of C: freedom - as in India, Wealth - DoH, Drain of wealth, intellectually - inferior, morally disoriented - slaves, weak.
What do you understand by Imperialism? How did it affect the people of Asia in the nineteenth century? [1979, 60 Marks]
Imperialism is the building up of an empire by seizing territory overseas. Most of Africa was taken over by the European states in what came to be known as the ‘Scramble of Africa’; the idea behind it was mainly to get control of new markets and new sources of raw materials.
Old Imperialism - 16th - 18th C | New Imperialism - 19th C - to date | Forces behind Imperialism and Colonialism |
Military force - hard power, Control of local governments. Causes: God, Glory, Gold. Goal: Raw materials, free labour. Way: Trading station not colonies (Spain - America, Portugal - Brazil). Economy: Mercantilism. Effect: Exploitation of natives, Famines, BoT for Europe, Market for Br goods. | Cultural Hegemony - Soft Power. Business Imperialism = invest in colonies to get returns more. Causes: Social Darwinism, White Man's Burden, Sell (I.R. effect), Military bases, Biggest Empires (Nationalism). New Steam Tech, Guns, Cannons. Effect: Colonies in Africa, India, China, Japan. Nationalistic movement of conquered. Competition for influence between European Powers. Clashes and conflicts - WW I, arms race, military alliances. | Nation States and Policy => more territory (N Africa 1st conquered). Geographical Voyages => America and Asia (Fall of Constantinople). Mercantilism => ideology of using state power to maintain fav BoT. Commercial Revolution => colonial control over In, Vietnam, Indo (raw goods from place of pdtn on most fav terms). Strategic interests => intermediate trading stations - Coastal Africa. Political Prestige = extent of colony. White Man's Burden => Christian missionaries to civilize nation. IR => monopolised markets for finished goods. |
Types of Colonialism:
Settlers People migrate to colony to reside permanently. Eg: USA. | Plantation Group of people due to geo-climatic purposes - plantation. Eg: C America. | Exploitation Small group migrates temporarily to exploit. Eg: Br rule in India. | Surrogate Colonial power supports local proxies in managing politicl affairs. Eg: Africa | Internal One group within country dominates others; resources do not go out of C. |
Tagore’s distinction between opposing Western imperialism and rejecting Western civilization:
Tagore was strongly involved in protest against the Raj on a number of occasions, most notably in the movement to resist the 1905 British proposal to split in two the province of Bengal. A month after the Jallianwala massacre, Tagore wrote to the Viceroy of India, asking to be relieved of the knighthood he had accepted four years earlier. Tagore made a special effort to dissociate his criticism of the Raj from any denigration of British - or Western - people and culture.
“….. the European nations in emphasizing their solidarity, their European’s in dealing with Asian countries inevitably gave rise to a feeling of Asianness.” Comment. [1988, 20 Marks]
“New imperialism was a nationalistic, not an economic phenomena.” Critically examine. [2013, 25 Marks] [2007, 20 Marks]
Write a critical note on: Theory of ‘The New imperialism’ after 1870. [1981, 20 Marks]
Imperialism and Colonialism were inalienable themes of the post commercial revolution world.
The New Imperialism refers to the Imperialism practiced after the second half of the nineteenth century of the several forces that failed imperialism; the most important was extreme nationalism.
It was when the new nation states had emerged in Europe. With almost all the Europe industrialized, it was no longer to trade with other countries.
A nationalistic phenomenon and not economic one. | New Imperialism was as economic as it was nationalistic. |
|
It was not either Nationalism or economic considerations alone but the two acting in tandem that drove the sinews of New Imperialism. |
Discuss the emergence of neo-imperialism in the late nineteenth century. [2009, 30 Marks]
What do you understand by imperialism? State briefly its unique features in the case of Africa? [2010, 20 Marks]
“In all the long annals of Imperialism, the partition of Africa is a remarkable freak.” Comment. [2009, 20 Marks]
Colonisation of Africa | Developments | Scramble for Africa |
|
|
Remarkable freak in annals of Imperialism. |
“The simultaneous expansion of European powers overseas during the last quarter of the 19th century brought them into frequent collisions at a remote points all over Africa and Asia.” Comment. [2000, 20 Marks]
To what extent did the expansion of European Powers in the late 19th century help in the modernization of Africa ? [2014, 10 Marks]
“History of Africa appears to be simply an extension or mere sub-theme under the broad headings of European and American history. According to this historiography, Africa seems to be without any history before the European scramble.” Elucidate. [2015, 20 Marks]
Write a critique on the partition of Africa from 1870 to 1914, with particular reference to Germany’s imperial designs in the Continent. [1989, 60 Marks]
Trace the stages in the partition of Africa after 1870. How did it affect international relations? [1996, 60 Marks]
Trace the various stages of European imperialism in Africa in the nineteenth century. [2001, 60 Marks]
Trace the growth of British imperialism in South Africa from 1800 to 1907 [2016, 10]
From Dutch to British:
South Africa was a Dutch colony until 1795. In 1795 the Cape was captured by the British during the French Revolutionary Wars, and the 1814 peace settlement decided that it should remain British. Many British settlers went out to Cape Colony which became the nucleus of the British Empire. From this the British began to push northwards and eventually established a big empire after a series of long and severe conflicts with Dutch settlers known as the Boers and some of the native tribes, especially the Zulus.
In 1879, after the Anglo-Zulu War, Britain consolidated its control of most of the territories of South Africa.
Boers became restless under British rule, especially when the British government made all slaves free throughout the British Empire (1838). The Boer farmers felt that this threatened their livelihood, and many of them decided to leave Cape Colony. They moved northwards (in what became known as ‘the Great Trek‘) and set up their own independent republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State (1835-40). Some also moved into the area east of Cape Colony known as Natal. But the British would not leave them in peace. In 1877, Shepstone annexed the South African Republic (or Transvaal – independent from 1857 to 1877) for the British Empire. The Boers protested, and in December 1880 they revolted, leading to the First Boer War (1880–81). British Prime Minister Gladstone signed a peace treaty on 23 March 1881, giving self-government to the Boers in the Transvaal. |
|
Role of Cecil Rhodes:
British kept followed the Boers, trying to surround them with British territory. In this attempt the most important part was played by Cecil Rhodes, the apostle of British imperialism in South Africa. He dreamt of an empire from the Cape to Cairo in which Briton and Boer would live side by side under the British flag. It was he who foiled the successive efforts of the Boer republics to extend their territory. At his instance that a British protectorate was established over Bechuanaland, and the territory, now called Rhodesia in his honour, was acquired.
He was largely responsible for the outbreak of the Second Boer War, which broke out in 1899. It was about control of the gold and diamond industries. It was a long and tough war for the Boers of the two republics (the Orange Free State joining its sister republic Transvaal) fought with great skill and tenacity and inflicted a series of reverses on British arms. In the end they were overpowered by numbers and peace was concluded in 1902 by which the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were annexed to the British Crown and in 1910 they joined up with Cape Colony and Natal to form the Union of South Africa.
In South Africa the grant of self-government was delayed in comparison with other white colonies like Australia, New Zealand, Canada because the situation there was complicated by the presence of the unfriendly Boers. Not until 1872 was it given to Cape Colony and by 1907 the other South African provinces were added to the list of self-governing colonies.
“Imperialism’s moral cloak has always been ‘humanitarianism’.”
The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new form of imperialism replacing colonialism. Strategic acumen called for invoking overt moral rationale of humanitarianism to convince the greater world of their “genuine” intentions of peace and justice.
For all the interventions and colonisations, the big powers gave the rationale of Providential mission. The colonial powers felt that it was their duty to bring western civilization to what they perceived as backward cultures.
Military intervention by US and other western powers on humanitarian grounds of protecting the civilians from incumbent governments and to wage a war against terrorism that too without UN sanctions.
However, the imperialism was not only extended through the military power but also through the other means –
Economic imperialism- By economic aid, loans and technology transfer on the grounds of international humanitarian practices to solve the socio-economic problems like hunger and poverty in least developed countries.
Dominance through the international institutes like IMF, WTO, WB etc where all the conditions of transfer of economic aid were based on capitalist model of development which happens to be the model of most advanced countries.
Projecting western culture in polity (democracy), in economy (liberal economy) and in society (individualism) as the best order and any deviation from it as abnormal and a temporary disorder.
Data colonialism where NGOs and companies from advanced countries come to third world countries to collect data related to some social problems like malnutrition on the pretext to solve the problem. But use the data to make a lucrative product and sell back to these countries and even regulate trade in these products..
Self-interests over resource rich destabilized countries like Afghanistan in the name of democratizing them. Similar cases are there in Iraq, Syria, Libya where self-interests are served wearing the moral cloak of humanitarianism.
“The countries in the Middle East became, after 1919, the scene of constant effervescence and some striking changes.” Comment. [1994, 20 Marks]
“The Eastern Question has always been an international question.” Comment. [1989, 20m] [2010, 30m]
Eastern question was diplomatic problem posed in the 19th century and early 20th centuries, raised as a result of the rise of a national feeling of nationality among the Balkan peoples, declining Turkish (Ottoman) Empire and the divergent interests of Great powers.
The central problem of the Eastern question was: what was to take the place of Turkish Empire in the event of her disintegration?
The Eastern question has always been an international question because of the involvement of the interests of many international actors. Any internal change in the Turkish domains caused tension among the European powers, each of which feared that one of the others might take advantage of the political disarray to increase its own influence.
This question arose periodically. Eg: during the Greek revolution of the 1820s, in the Crimean conflict (1853-56), the Balkan crisis of 1875-78, the Bosnian crisis of 1908 and the Balkan wars of 1912-13.
The interest of major powers in the Eastern Question:
Russia’s interest in the Balkans – The ambitions of Russia at the expense of Turkey were a constant factor in the Eastern question. Russia was bound to the peoples of Balkans by the ties of religion and race. Russia claimed the rights of protecting them from Turkish misrule. Russia also wanted to secure access to the Mediterranean Sea by seizing Constantinople from Turkey. Hence, Russian policy was to dismember Turkey or at least dominate her by unequal treaties.
England’s interest – Suspicion about the Russian designs upon Turkey was the key-note of the British policy. They feared that the Russian control over Constantinople would greatly weaken British hold upon India. They watched every Russian movement with suspicion. Thus over the Eastern question there developed chronic antagonism between Britain and Russia. British policy was to check Russian advance by preserving the integrity of Turkish Empire.
Austrian interest – Austria was Russia’s rival in the Balkans because:
Being a landlocked country with only a short coast line at the head of Adriatic, she badly needed outlet to the seat. It was important strategically as well as economically. She needed expansion towards port in the Balkans by stopping Russian influence.
The great volume of her trade passed along the Danube valley, and so it was her interest to prevent Russian supremacy at the mouth of Danube which would have happened if Russia expanded towards Constantinople.
She feared the growth of the pan-Slavic movement in the Balkans which was encouraged by Russia, as it would sap (निर्बल बनाना) the loyalty of her slav subjects and could threaten Austrian Empire. Hence she tried to cripple and confine the leading slav state in the Balkan, i.e. Serbia.
French interest – she had commercial and religious interest in the East. She had befriended Turkey and obtained special trading privileges. She was also traditional protector of the Roman Catholic Christians in the East under Turkish Empire.
German interest – The affair of the East did not appeal to her till the last quarter of the 19th century. Bismarck had kept himself aloof of the Eastern question. But in 1878, at the Congress of Berlin to solve the Eastern question, he posed as an “honest broker” and administered a check on Russia in order to befriend Austria. Germany befriended with Turkey, trained her army and secured permission to build the Baghdad-Berlin Railways.
“Nominally the new Turkey was republican and democratic.” Comment. [1992, 20 Marks]
Mustafa Kemal Pasa, "ATATURK" or father of the Turks was founder of modern Turkey. He led the foundation of Democratic, Secular Republic of Turkey.
In 1923, Turkish republic was formally proclaimed and ATATURK was unanimously elected as its first President. The new Turkey was in form Republican and Democratic. There was a written constitution vesting the supreme authority in a National Assembly to be elected every four years by universal suffrage. The Assembly was to elect the President every fourth year.
But in practice the government of Turkey was conducted by Kamal Pasha as a national dictator. There was only one well organised political party, the People's Party, and Kamal was its leader. As such he controlled the Assembly and ensured his election to the President ship. As Commander-in-Chief he controlled the army and ensured obedience to the authority of his government.
Hence, the new Turkey was republican and democratic nominally not practically.
“Under Mustafa Kemal’s dictatorship; Turkey was rapidly nationalized.” Comment. [1986, 20 Marks]
Turkish renaissance guided by Kemal Pasha revolutionized the Turkish life a many levels. Amplify. [1996, 60 Marks]
“Mehemet Ali, half an illiterate barbarian, half a consummate statesman, was wholly a genius.” Comment. [1982, 20 Marks]
“Mohammad Ali combined ambition with perspicacity (चीज़ों की तह तक प्रवेश करने की शक्ति / clairvoyance) to a greater degree than any other Oriental ruler of the nineteenth century.” Comment. [1985, 20 Marks]
In 1798 Egypt, at that time a semiautonomous province of the Ottoman Empire, was occupied by a French force under Napoleon Bonaparte. Muḥammad ʿAlī arrived there in 1801 as second in command of a 300-man Albanian regiment sent by the Ottoman government to oust the French from Egypt. With great political skill, he managed by 1805 to be named the wālī, the Ottoman sultan’s viceroy in Egypt, with the rank of pasha.
To strengthen his position within Egypt and to increase his revenues, Muḥammad ʿAlī instituted sweeping changes.
He improved Egypt’s irrigation system, Disbanding his mercenary army, he created a fleet and an army of Egyptians conscripted from the peasant class, created Western-style schools to train doctors, engineers.
His industrial experiments failed, largely because Egypt lacked sources of power. Even the agricultural sector declined ultimately because of administrative mismanagement, excessive taxation, military conscription of the peasantry, and his monopolization of trade.
Although many of his reforms and institutions were abandoned—some before his death—he is nevertheless hailed as having cleared the path for the creation of an independent Egyptian state.
Pasha’s power is not of his inherent genius, but of the elaborate mystique of his court ceremonials.
“The period 1919 to 1945 is important in the history of Egypt for the explanation of its resources by Great Britain and rise of strong nationalism.” Discuss. [1980, 60 Marks]
Identify the main strands in the Egyptian nationalist movement in the first half of the present century and explain the role played in it by Zaghlul Pasha. [1983, 60 Marks]
For more than 400 years, all Arabs – except for parts of Arabia and Morocco - were under Ottoman rule.
But the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after 1918 resulted in Arabs falling prey to identity conflicts and foreign domination (Britain and France), and prepared the stage for a surge of nationalistic feelings in the region. It was in this context, marked by chaos and confusion, that Saad Zaghlul, a liberal reformist stepped in.
Zaglul believed that independence could be achieved through legal and educational reform. The foundations of nationalism in Egypt were originally based by Mustafa Kamel [a nationalist lawyer who called for British troops to leave], but Saad Zaghlul gave the nationalist movement a wider social dimension by engaging the urban masses.
For Kamel, nationalism was merely about ending the British occupation, not establishing an Egyptian nation-state. Zaglul advocated the slogan 'Egypt for Egyptians'. As World War I came to an end, Zaghlul increasingly began to call for Egyptian independence from Britain. Zaghlul formed a delegation – the Arabic term, al-wafd – to head to Paris (Peace Conference 1919), but the British authorities in Egypt arrested and exiled him to Malta.
The exile of Zaghlul – “the uncrowned king of the peasants” - unleashed fierce Egyptian anti-British sentiment, resulting in huge demonstrations and riots in what came to be known as the 1919 Revolution.
The nationalist movements had until then consisted mainly of army officers … it consisted of lawyers and Effendis. Zaghlul, however, managed to transform it into a popular movement, in which the Egyptian peasantry participated heavily.
Zaghlul also stressed Muslim-Christian unity, an idea that would heavily influence other Arab nationalist movements. Britain ended its protectorate hold on Egypt by 1923.
Though his main focus was Egypt, Zaghlul sowed the seeds of nationalism that continued to grow inside and outside Egypt even after his death.
In 1920, Iraq witnessed a localised rebellion against the British, and in 1925, there was a nationalist revolt against the French in Syria. In 1933, the Neo-Dostour party, which raised the flag of nationalism, was established in Tunisia under the leadership of Habib Bourguiba. By the early 1940s, Morocco and Algeria witnessed the rise of nationalist movements.
Zaghlul contributed indirectly to the rise of Arabism in Egypt by insisting as education minister on making Arabic the language of instruction in the public primary schools, against the wishes of the British.
The 1919 Revolution the "unfinished revolution" because it failed at ending the British occupation; they believe it was completed by the 1952 Revolution, which succeeded in ousting the British and bringing about social, economic and political changes.
The Arab nationalism had a peculiar character. It stood for nation independence for separate Arab States as well as for the unity of all Arabs irrespective of their state boundaries.” – Examine. [2012, 30 Marks]
Arab World - Egypt | Emergence of Arab Nationalism or Nat'l in Egypt | Independence of Egypt |
|
Unique Character
|
|
|
|
|
“One of the last Strongholds – of oil imperialism and European colonialism it (Middle East) cultivates a fiery nationalism as a weapon against foreign oppression.” Comment. [1987, 20 Marks]
Arab Nationalism and Oil- these were the principal factors complicating the relations of the West Asian countries with the outside world. Do you agree? [1993, 60 Marks]
“Arab nationalism and oil – these were the principal Factors in complicating the relations of middle eastern countries with the outside world.” [2009, 30 Marks]
Trace the growth of Arab nationalism after the, First World War. How far was it a reaction to oil imperialism? [1989, 60 Marks]
Trace the growth of Arab nationalism after the First World War. How far was it a reaction to Oil Imperialism? [2016]
British and French Imperialists divided region into “mandates”. The British encouraged Zionists, to establish a separate Jewish state by taking over parts or all of Palestine. The threat Zionism posed to Arab Palestinians became a major rallying point for Arab nationalism.
The economic and geopolitical changes brought about by World War II, and the rhetoric of self-determination and democracy under which the conflict was waged, also provided a tremendous spur to Arab revolt. In 1956, Egypt defeated the French and British in a fight for control of the Suez Canal. In 1958, revolution exploded in Iraq and strikes and demonstrations in Lebanon. Algeria won liberation from the French in 1962.
Oil imperialism – theory implies that all other considerations, such as human rights or national sovereignty or biodiversity, always take second place to access to cheap fossil fuel energy. The Paris 1919 has some documented incidents of some peoples, notably the Kurd and Arab populations of what became Iraq, being denied self-determination because they were sitting on what were thought to be large oil reserves. Saudi Arabia was permitted sovereignty because it was thought not to be oil-rich!
Education played a vital part in glorifying the past, in raising political consciousness and in kindling a nationalist spirit in a generation of young Arabs.
Obstacles along its path:
Conflicting identities and competing loyalties to tribe, sect, region, and religion.
Tension between Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian and other regional identities, and the larger, all-encompassing Arab identity.
Linguistic diversity in the land of Araby.
Discuss the aims of the establishment of the Arab League and assess it role in safeguarding the interests of the Arab nations. [2001, 60 Marks]
It formed in Cairo on 22 March 1945 with six members: Kingdom of Egypt, Kingdom of Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1949), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Currently, the League has 22 members.
When the State of Israel was created in 1948, the league countries jointly attacked but were repulsed by the Israelis. Two years later, Arab League nations signed a mutual defense treaty. Fifteen more Arab nations eventually joined the organization, which established a common market in 1965.
The League's main goal is to "draw closer the relations between member States and co-ordinate collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries.
Both Russia and China have at times brutally suppressed secessionist movements in Chechnya and Tibet, respectively. Moscow and Beijing fear that if the Syrian opposition succeeds, Chechens and Tibetans may revolt, and therefore they no doubt will quell these rebellions, knowing full-well that neither the UN, NATO, nor anyone in the West will intervene.
The Arab League, like Russia and China, adheres to this same policy of self-interest and supreme internal sovereignty.
Suez Canal Crisis:
The Suez Canal provided Britain with a shorter sea route to its empire and, as the 20th century dawned and oil grew in importance, it provided a short sea route to the oilfields of the Persian Gulf. Britain was therefore committed to protect the canal.
During the two World Wars, the Suez Canal came under attack. Soon after the outbreak of World War One, Britain declared Egypt a protectorate and British and Indian forces were sent to protect the canal. Turkey, which had entered the war as Germany’s ally in 1914, sent troops to seize the canal in February 1915. This attack was beaten back and by 1916 British defensive lines had been driven deep into the Sinai desert to prevent any further attempt.
The defeat of Turkey in 1918 resulted in much of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire being divided between Britain and France, leaving Britain in control of the oilfields of what is now Iraq.
The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty signed in London in 1936 proclaimed Egypt to be an independent sovereign state, but allowed for British troops to continue to be stationed in the Suez Canal zone to protect Britain’s financial and strategic interest in the canal until 1956, at which time the need for their presence would be re-examined and, if necessary, renegotiated.
Discuss the circumstances leading to the Suez Crisis of 1956 and examine its repercussions on global politics. [2014, 10 Marks]
The Suez Crisis of 1956 has its roots in the post-war upsurge of nationalism in Egypt. In 1951, Nahas Pasha leader of the recently-elected nationalist Wafd party revoked the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936.
British threats to occupy Cairo prompted King Farouk of Egypt to dismiss Nahas Pasha, but in July 1952 Farouk was overthrown in a military coup and General Mohammed Neguib seized power. British Foreign Secretary tried to negotiate with new government.
In 1954, Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser replaced General Neguib. He had three goals: to make Egypt independent by ending British occupation; to build up Egyptian forces for a successful attack on Israel; to improve Egypt’s economy by constructing a high dam at Aswan to irrigate the Nile valley.
US would not give foreign aid for Ashwin dam; Britain denied arms to Naseer; World Bank refused to advance Egypt the promise of $200 million.
On 26 July 1956, President Nasser nationalised the Anglo-French Suez Canal Company, declaring that he would take the revenue from the canal to finance his dam.
In October 1956, Mollet, Eden and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion met at Sevres near Paris and concluded a secret agreement that Israel should attack Egypt, thereby providing a pretext for an Anglo-French invasion of Suez.
Politically, the intervention in Suez was a disaster. World opinion, especially that of the United States, together with the threat of Soviet intervention, forced Britain, France and Israel to withdraw their troops from Egypt.
Anglo-American relations were strained by the Suez Crisis, but as Cold War Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) they continued to cooperate. Britain's prestige was dealt a severe blow.
Examine the causes and consequences of the Six-Day War of 1967, and also its significance for India.
The six day war was fought between Israel and the three neighbouring states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
Causes of 6 day war of 1967: | Consequences: | Significance of this war for India: |
<Draw a map showing Israel – Syria, Jordan, Egypt (also Lebanon)> | Israel recaptured Jerusalem in more than 2000 years. It took possession of Golan Heights from Syria. United the pan-Arab nations who signed ‘Khartoum Declaration’ stating that no peace could be made with Israel until it withdrew from the territories it captured in the 1967 war. A series of anti-Semitic activities increased in communist nations which led to migration of Jews to Israel.
| It led to critical shift in Indian think tank who realised that security of nation solely lies on itself. It brought realism into governments approach and military modernization followed. The 1971 war was a victory for India too. India could correlate itself with Israel surrounded by adversarial neighbours. On military terms it also realised that swiftness in operation with superior air force can bring a decisive victory. Because Nehru and Naseer had special relationship, India enjoyed the cooperation of Arab world in diplomacy. Later after the death of Egyptian president this diplomacy gradually declined. |
The 1967 war is a reminder of how failure in diplomacy can lead to war.
How India’s foreign policy vis-a-vis Palestine evolved
The first modern political ties between India and the Arab world were forged over a common opposition of British imperialism, when Palestinians were looked upon by Indian nationalists as fellow brothers-in-bondage.
Weeks after receiving the Israeli Prime Minister and a historic visit to Israel in July 2017, Prime Minister Narendra Modi kicked off his 3-nation West Asia tour to Palestine, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. The visit to Palestine’s de facto West Bank capital, Ramallah, where Modi was received by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, became the first ever by an Indian premier. This is being looked upon with interest as a continuation of Indian foreign policy’s recent pragmatic drive to dehyphenate Israel and Palestine. Until 1992, India espoused and endorsed the Palestinian cause almost exclusively.
The evolution of India’s Palestine policy goes back to the pre-independence days, right up to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine — then a part of the Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population of 3-5 per cent. The first modern political ties between India and the Arab world were forged over a common opposition of British imperialism, when Palestinians were looked upon by Indian nationalists as fellow brothers-in-bondage.
“Palestine for the Arabs”: Mahatma Gandhi
While expressing his deep sympathies with the long persecution of Jews, especially at the hands of Germans during World War II, Gandhi famously said in 1938, “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French”. Led by him, the Indian nationalists came to view the Jewish aspirations for a national home in Palestine, through an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial prism. The Zionists were seen in the Indian perspective as European people, who went wrong by relying on imperialist powers to set up an exclusivist, theocratic state in West Asia at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs.
Writing from prison to daughter Indira, Nehru depicted the Palestine issue as analogous to the communal troubles of the Indian subcontinent. Just as the British were employing the divide and rule tactics between Hindus and Muslims to perpetuate their domination, he perceived the English in Palestine pitting “Jewish religious nationalism against Arab nationalism, and [making] it appear that [their] presence is necessary to act as an arbiter and to keep the peace between the two.”
Another important albeit less acknowledged dimension of the Palestinian issue had been the lack of communal unity in colonial India against the British Raj circa 1920s. The mass upheaval of Muslims in British India during the Khilafat Movement in the aftermath of World War I, which was meant to oppose the non-Muslim (British) interference, control and occupation of Islamic territories, including Palestine, presented a ripe opportunity for the Indian National Congress to throw its weight behind and club with the Non-Cooperation Movement in order to build Hindu-Muslim unity. Even during this time, the Muslim League rallied around the Palestine issue and projected itself as the exclusive voice of Muslims of India. This Congress-Muslim League rivalry on Palestine translated into Indo-Pakistan rivalry after independence, with neither nation wanting to be outdone by the other. As P R Kumaraswamy, Professor of Middle Eastern studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, puts it, that while Pakistan flagged its Islamic credentials, “India used a secular, nationalist, and anti-imperialist narrative to establish its pro-Palestinian track record”.
Unity with the Arab nations
Under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s steadfast, principled support to the Palestinian cause continued in its post-independence foreign policy. The intervening four decades were marked by Nehruvian idealism and Non-Alignment Movement when India as a young nation with limited international leverage searched for its ideological footing and attempted to court the friendship and support of the numerous Arab nations of West Asia. One of the key issues that India hoped to get support from Arab nations in return was neutrality on the Kashmir issue, which Pakistan incessantly cast in the Arab world with a pan-Islamic stake in order to gain allies. To this day, Delhi’s ostensible cool off with Ramallah after Modi and Netanyahu’s respective visits to each other resulted in Pakistan stepping in to establish equivalence between Kashmir and Palestine.
In 1974-75, when the Palestine Liberation Organisation and its leader Yasser Arafat were vilified as being a “terrorist,” India vigorously supported its bid for an Observer status within the UN General Assembly’s deliberations over Palestine and became the first non-Arab nation to recognise the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who shared a close relationship with Yasser Arafat, upgraded the Palestinian mission in India to embassy status in 1980. After the Palestinian National Council’s declaration of independence in 1988, India accorded it with official recognition, maintaining a principled position of support for the two-state solution, championing a “sovereign, independent, united” Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem.
Within this zero-sum relationship, while India formally recognised Israel in 1950, full diplomatic relations were not established with it as a matter of principle until 1992 under the Narsimha Rao government. Throughout this period, such a steadfast stand of the Indian government was questioned by commentators, leaders and journalists in India and abroad on various grounds, including whether establishment of diplomatic relations with a country could be held tantamount to approval of that country’s domestic or foreign policies.
A unipolar world and a liberalised economy
With the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the USSR — and the domestic economic crisis forced India to respond to new challenges and dilute its hard adherence. Pragmatists received an upper hand in policy in the post-liberalisation India, which gradually began gravitating towards the United States, and strategic alliances became pre-eminent over ideological coalitions with the aim of pursuing national interest. It has been a tightrope walk for India between Palestine and Israel, ever since, in asserting its independent foreign policy.
After a normalisation of relations with Israel under PM Rao, the closeness of the two countries received a strong impetus under the BJP-led government in the late 1990s and again under the current government. Economic ties, investment, defense collaborations and technological and cultural exchanges with Israel have significantly increased in the recent years. Regardless, however, India in December 2017 voted against the United States’ decision in the UN to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Ramallah recall: On India’s Palestine policy
Traditionally, India has supported the creation of an independent Palestine within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. According to this line, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and either pull out the Jewish settlements or do a land-swap with the Palestinians as part of a final agreement. Mr. Modi carefully avoided any reference to the borders or to the capital. In effect, India’s support for the two-state solution remains, but it has now stopped short of the specifics.
Could not de-hyphenate Palestine from Jordan
Entering the West Bank is, however, more complicated. As a landlocked area, its only access to the outside world has been through Jordan. Prior to the June War, when the West Bank was part of the Hashemite Kingdom, Palestinians travelled abroad through the Allenby Crossing which had been operational since the days of the Ottoman Empire. After the June War and Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Palestinians used this crossing to go to Jordan and from there to other countries. After the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, to facilitate the flow of Israeli tourists, Jordan opened two other border crossings to the North and South of the Allenby Crossing, now called King Hussein Crossing. Unlike the Gaza Strip, however, the West Bank does not have an airport, except a heliport in the Mukata’a or the headquarters of the Palestine National Authority (PNA) in Ramallah.
Since the early 1920s, Indian nationalists were never enamoured of the Hashemites, then the rulers of the Hejaz region which also includes Mecca and Medina. The Arab Revolt of 1916 spearheaded by Sharif Hussein of Mecca—the great-great-grandfather of the present King—did not go down well with the Indian nationalists who saw it as a British-inspired conspiracy against the Ottoman sultan-cum-caliph. In later years, this jaundiced view transformed into Indian disapproval of Jordan being a pro-Western monarchy in the post-Second World War Middle Eastern order.
India’s normalization of relations with Israel in 1992 and the bonhomie generated by the Oslo process meant that the mandarins felt comfortable dealing with Israel and Palestine while disregarding the geographic compulsions. While Amman was used as a transit point for visits to the region, India never recognized the importance of Jordan vis-à-vis the Palestinian cause. Unlike his father, King Abdullah does not wish to return to the pre-June 1967 position of Jordanian rule over the West Bank. With a sizeable number of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, such a policy would be a curse than a blessing. At the same time, a greater Jordanian role is a pre-condition for Palestinian statehood, both for logistical as well as developmental considerations. Bluntly put, Indian assistance to the Palestinians could not be routed through Israel without political controversy both at home and abroad, and India cannot help the Palestinians constructively without coordinating with Jordan.
0 Comments