The Israeli anomaly
Here’s the quite inexplicable part.
Even the OG ‘Idea of India’ designers did NOT recognize ‘Idea of Israel.’
Let me repeat:
“Secular” Indian government didn’t recognize “Jewish” State of Israel, in 1947.
Why?
If the ‘Secular Idea of India’ was only concerned about how we view ourselves, then what did it have to do with Israel?
Here, I’ll turn to the ‘truth-has-a-left-bias’ wikipedia on India-Israel relations, so that people cannot accuse me of pushing ‘Hindutva right-wing conspiracy theories.’
Given so much demeaning disgust hurled our way in the name of ‘Hindu superstition’ and ‘Hindu pseudo-science’, posing greatest possible obstacles in the obviously grueling path of our glorious, Cambridge-educated, scientifically tempered leader Nehru; leading the ‘newly born India’ out of the darkness of (Hindu) religious superstition and on the way to the light of a scientific revolution, free from all useless (Hindu) religious-dogma and attendant (quite unnecessary) political-minefields, it is but natural to begin by highlighting what Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists who’d fled Hinduitva’s alleged favorite nazi-germany, had to say about such useless religious-national matters like Israel – and how the great anti-Fascist, liberal, Secular, scientific icon Nehru responded to him.
Wikipedia says – and I quote:
Albert Einstein wrote a four-page letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 June 1947, to persuade India to support the setting up of a Jewish state. Nehru, however, couldn’t accept Einstein’s request, and explained his dilemma stating that national leaders “have to unfortunately pursue policies that are essentially selfish”.
There.
Which ultimately resulted in not 1 but 2 crucial votes in international-relations arena:
India voted against the Partitioning of Palestine plan of 1947 and voted against Israel’s admission to the United Nations in 1949.’
For 3 years after 1947, it went on like that.
It is also crucial to note that:
India’s position on the establishment of the State of Israel was affected by many factors, including India’s own partition on religious lines, and India’s relationship with other nations.
Remember that.
Ultimately, India under Nehru did recognize Israel. In 1950.
What was Nehru’s reasoning, for this change of heart?
Not just national but international Muslim appeasement! Their so-called “hurt sentiments!”
In Nehru’s own words:
‘We would have [recognised Israel] long ago, because Israel is a fact. We refrained because of our desire not to offend the sentiments of our friends in the Arab countries.’
So not only Nehru-led-Secular-India was ready to betray the ‘Secular Idea of India’ long ago, but the only reason it didn’t do so, was foreign Arabian ‘hurt-sentiments!’ They mattered more to Nehru than Hindu hurt-sentiments of his own countrymen, when the very cradle of our civilization, the lands of Sindhu-n-Saraswati, was offered to P****stan for continuous defilement and islamist savagery.
I guess that was in ‘national interest’ too? I wonder what happens to ‘We, the people’ part in ‘Indian Constitution’ then?
But I’ll revisit this topic very shortly.
For now…
Even after that, we all know that Israel was only allowed to open a small consulate 3 years later, in 1953, and nothing more. A full diplomatic relationship could only become possible after the fall of Soviet Union and our balance-of-payment crisis in 1992. An IMF deal worked-out under pressure by US very much on the lines of Abraham Accords.
Full recognition of Jewish State of Israel, in exchange for economic survival.
Given how this very need for economic survival had come about, by relying on ‘Nehruvian Socialism’ and ‘Nehruvian Consensus’ for 4 decades, I’d say it wasn’t in our ‘selfish national-interest’ even back then, either economically or socially. To rely on any of those factors.
To deny Jewish Right to Self-Determination about Israel.
Or denying Hindus’ Right to Self-Determination about Bharat.
Also, it needs to be remembered that growing up, we were taught about our non-recognition of Israel as a decision based purely and solely, on the so-called ‘moral high-grounds’. The chest-beaten screaming Secular logic of ‘Since we had gone through religion-based partition ourselves, we could not recognize yet another nation founded purely on the basis of religion.’
I don’t remember ever being told about ‘National-Interests’ coming into play regarding such decisions.
So that’s purely on Marxist historians that we’re judging, and hammering them, on this particular ground.
Even if it (meaning ‘national-interests’) was in the play, it stands proven, that our leaders’ faith and commitment to ‘Secular Idea of India’ was as thin as the rainbowy film formed by a single drop of crude-oil in pristine waters of Ganga.
The basket-case – and the eternal grave for stillborn ‘Secular Idea of India.’
An Abrahmo-Leftist can still argue, somewhat disingenuously and with more than a little gas-lighting – not to mention tremendous hypocrisy, that all of the above shenanigans about Israel was, indeed, nothing but a matter of dispute between 3rd parties in which we had no direct stake. (Hamas fans in Kerala say hi!)
But P****stan, I’d hate to inform them, does NOT fit that definition.
I don’t need to recall the entire history of 4 bloody wars – not to mention decades long Jihadi terrorism, our still occupied territory, and massive ethnic-cleansing of Kashmiri Pundits here.
We start at the very beginning.
Seculars and Abrahmo-Leftists would have us believe that their ‘Secular Idea of India’ is opposed to everything P****stan is and stands for.
In fact, they never tire of reminding us, that it is not an accident but by-design.
It was purely a reactionary measure, this ‘Secular Idea of India.’
Never mind the thousands of years long civilizational wisdom, about “Who we are? As a Nation?” since thousands of years…let’s push all that aside. Because in that particular moment in history, in 1947, what a Jihadi joker like P****stan did, mattered more than anything else.
‘P****stan did this, so we’ll do the opposite.’ can be a short, less-than-10-words summation of ‘Secular Idea of India.’
They never tire of screaming and beating their chests about the fact that they never accepted P****stani core-ideology, that they never accepted Jihadi separatist two-nation theory. That indeed, it’s the Hindutvadis, who want their own “Hindu-P****tan.” And it’s only them – the Secular, Abrahmo-Leftists – who’re truly opposed to P****stani thoughts and remain committed to the core anti-P****stani stand permanently enshrined in ‘Nehruvian, Constitutional, Idea of India.’
That. Is. A. Lie.
An epic, monstrous, BIG LIE.
A national lie peddled since 1947.
Shoved down all our throats.
Because guess what?
Right from day one (or thereabouts, it doesn’t really matter now, does it?): the congress party, our so-called founding-fathers in the then government led by Secular Pro-Max-Ultra Nehru, the OG dreamers of ‘Secular Idea of India’, had, “recognized” P****stan.
P****stan’s Right to Exist.
As an Independent, Sovereign, Islamic Nation-State.
On a territory and with a people, which Nehruvian consensus and Seculars, allegedly never considered a “separate people” or “separate nation.”
With establishing of full diplomatic relations soon-after.
It doesn’t matter what you believed or didn’t believe about Partition in theory.
What matters is what did you do, in practice, in the end.
What was your bottom-line?
In the case of Nehruvian Consensus and even the OG designers of ‘Secular Idea of India’: they not only accepted partition of our ancient ‘Indian territory – united by the colonizer British’ on the basis of religion, but they agreed, formally, with two-nation theory.
Recognizing P****stan’s Right to Exist as an Islamic Nation-State. With our stolen lands. And our stolen people.
You do not oppose P****stani ideology by adopting some reactionary measure slapped on hundreds of millions of people on your own side. And then topping it off, by beating your chest about it for nearly 3-quarters of a century, with some weird claim to moral-superiority that ‘We stand against everything P****stan is!’ A baffling obsession that comes from self-sacrificial, suicidal move that never benefitted our nation or its people. Even after partition.
No, you don’t do that.
You oppose P****stani ideology, by, well… opposing everything P****stan itself is. And does. That burden of proof for legitimacy lies solely and squarely with separatist Jihadi nation and its Jihadi monsters. Them and them alone.
We didn’t need to prove anything, to anyone.
And I cannot believe how much of a laughing stock we must’ve become in international geo-political arena for nearly 8 decades afterwards! when our brown-sahebs and Secular ‘Idea of India’ chest-beaters beat their chest about ‘We stand against everything P****stan stands for!’ – Right after we “recognized” – formally – everything P****stan is.
An Islamic Nation-State, founded solely on the basis of religion.
What kind of bloody international political stupidity is that?
And the truly epic part – and I’ll have to say it here: shame on all of us! – we actually believed this utter non-sense!
When the whole absurdity of it was staring right in our faces for nearly 8 decades!
Because what I’m saying? It’s NOTsome kind of ‘profound political insight!’
It’s bloody common-sense! Basic, simple, incontestable logic of statecraft 101 in international relations that even a 10 year old would be able to understand.
But alas…
We kept being defensive!
We kept fighting the battle for ‘Idea of India’ framed on bogus, imaginary battle-lines and pre-defined borders of argument, drawn solely by heinous and treasonous Abrahmo-Leftists and alleged Seculars – just like the total imaginary and bogus idea that P****stan was – and is!
Because in the history of international-relations and geo-politics… well, let’s see how the real ironclad commitment to a nation’s Idea of itself looks like – especially with regards to what it considers its ‘exact opposite,’ something totally unpalatable whose mere existence is an abhorrent anomaly to natural order of things.
A thing, that should not be.
That should not even exist.
(To be continued…)
