India, Washington and the Middle East Crisis

Terrorism is not a new threat in India. It has been around since its independence more than half a century ago. Various terror groups use various reasons and means in justifying their terror operations. But the most significant reason of these terrors is political rather than religious reason.

Kashmir, the Northeastern region, Punjab are examples of where terror groups have been operating and voicing their discontent against the Indian government. Even though religious groups different from the majority group in India dominate these regions, but they have political reason to assert their terrorist activities: being independent from India. Besides, the threat from the Maoist (Naxalite) group is also very much apparent in India.

Of these various terror threats, the threats in Punjab and the Northeastern region have significantly subsided over the years, but Kashmir and Maoist militancy are on the rise in the past few years. The government has been trying hard to curb and suppress the activities of these groups but it seems that the threats of terror are growing by the day. The most recent terrorist attacks in India occurred in Mumbai, Srinagar and Orissa two weeks ago. More than 200 innocent people were killed in these attacks. If the first two attacks, Mumbai and Srinagar, were suspected to be conducted by Kashmiri militants, the attacks and killings in the villages in Orissa was conducted by the Naxalite group.

It was on the backdrop of these recent attacks that the Indian government decided to seek international support in its fight against terror threats at home. India wanted the international community to isolate terrorists anywhere irrespective of the cause they are fighting for and the group or country they get support from. And when India was invited to join the Outreach Session of the Summit of the G-8 leaders in St. Petersburg last week, it eagerly took the opportunity and lobbied these leaders to issue tough statement against terrorism.

The result: they stood with India and agreed to “undertake all necessary measures to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, sponsors of terrorist acts and those who incited perpetrators”. This was termed as a “major diplomatic gain” for India but the issue has gone well beyond Pakistan against whom India had intended to tighten international screw. It means that India stands equal with other nations in the fight against terrorism and all terror groups and their sponsors in the eyes of the US and its allies are now must be regarded the same by India.

This newly found support from the world leaders to India’s fight against terrorism at home, and its cozy relation with Washington, proved to be too delicate for India’s foreign policy in the Middle East. This “major diplomatic gain” has become a double-edged sword for India’s foreign policy in the region. India has long been known for its staunch support to the Palestinian cause and has close relation with Iran and Syria, two countries widely perceived as traditional supporters of Hezbollah. At the same time, it has also opened a diplomatic relation with Israel and building up a closer relation with the Jewish state. Thus, when the current Middle East crisis erupted, India found itself in a complicated position.

Even though the Indian government has strongly criticized Israel’s “disproportionate retaliation” to the kidnapping of its two soldiers by Hezbollah, but it is unable to unequivocally and strongly condemned Israel’s military action to root out Hezbollah militant from Lebanon. Israel has breached international laws and the Geneva Conventions by unlawfully entering and occupying the southern part of Lebanon, a sovereign and independent state. Israel has destroyed public infrastructures killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Israel’s military aggression, thus, deserves a strong and unequivocal condemnation from the international community and India should have done this regardless of any risk it might face.

But the reluctance shown so far by PM Manmohan Singh’s government will certainly bring additional criticism from its Left allies who already claim that New Delhi is increasingly aligning with Washington and not critical enough of Tel Aviv. At the same time, it would also affect India’s non-align stature and its position in the region. Its relation with Iran has already been affected in which Teheran has already called off an LPG agreement between the two countries. This could go even further if India does not respond to the Middle East quickly.

Having a good relation with Washington is beneficial in one sense but it can also be very delicate to handle. India’s current position is an example of this. It has good relation with both Washington and the Middle East but at the same time, it has to balance the two so as not to fall into the trap of unilateralism. Furthermore, if India is still ambitious enough to play major role internationally it must take corrective actions in the current crisis in the Middle East and must balance its national and international position so as to keep multilateralism intact. A failure to do so would not only bring down the government in New Delhi but would also put India at par with Israel and other Washington’s allies.


This post has been published in the Op-Ed section of The Jakarta Post on 29 June 2006. The published title of this post was India, U.S. and the Mideast Crisis.