India to back Palestinian bid for U.N. membership

what should India have done in the UN Palestinian bid for membership

  • Support the bid for membership

    Votes: 12 30.8%
  • Do not support the bid for membership

    Votes: 27 69.2%

  • Total voters
    39

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Ofcourse we do pay and not get our toys through soft loans.

But there are some tech that is NOT given even if you are ready to pay money and we get access to that stuff from Israel.

Another example is the RISAT tech which are ultra classified. So in the world of defence you dont get ANYTHING for money
Yes, I agree with that. Even the USSR at times kept certain technologies away from India.

Arab States are not selling oil at a subsidy. It's plain business. In my opinion, abstinence is a far better option than taking a side.
 

Abir

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
221
Likes
53
What would India gain by abstaining when it's certain that US will veto the process, India has her compulsions and Israel knows it.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
What would India gain by abstaining when it's certain that US will veto the process, India has her compulsions and Israel knows it.
Bragging rights to claim neutrality.

The Arab World also knows that India has certain compulsions. Can we, for a change, expect a little more flexibility from them?
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
What would India gain by abstaining when it's certain that US will veto the process, India has her compulsions and Israel knows it.
Do you know whom the Palestinians are going to approach first in the UN and for what- and then the back up plan?
 

Abir

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
221
Likes
53
Bragging rights to claim neutrality.

The Arab World also knows that India has certain compulsions. Can we, for a change, expect a little more flexibility from them?
They did notice and mend their ways.

India's Israeli-Arab tightrope walk - Focus - Al Jazeera English

Quoting without highlights.

"What made India change its mind and throw itself in the arms of a country that occupies Arab and Palestinian land, to the point where it has played host to Ariel Sharon?" asked Mustafa El-Feki, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Egyptian parliament, and a former Egyptian ambassador to India, in an article in Al-Ahram Weekly.

"India and Israel have their own separate political agendas. India wishes to have access to US and Israeli technology, particularly in the development of weapons. Israel, for its part, wishes to have the political backing of a powerful nation," he wrote.

El-Feki pointed to several reasons for this cosy relationship between India and Israel.

First, we have made the error of viewing the Indian-Pakistani conflict from an Islamic perspective. We have tried to "Islamise" the ongoing conflict in South Asia, posing as protectors of Islam and custodians of the international community. And we have overlooked the regional role of India, with Arab leaders showing up in New Delhi much less frequently than before.

Second, he wrote, was the rejection of India's application for membership of the OIC. "A country with 120 million Muslim citizens applied for membership and what happened? Islamic countries, in typical naiveté, rejected the Indian application, imagining this would please Pakistan and teach India a lesson," he said.

Third, according to El-Feki, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, India moved closer to the US for both political and economic reasons. He argued: "I wouldn't be surprised to see India assume the role of a policeman in the Indian Ocean and the outskirts of the Gulf, with US blessing and with the aim of encircling so-called Islamic violence. This would be in harmony with Israel's agenda, and it may pave the way to a scheme of joint control over the Greater Middle East."

Making a strong case for an even-handed Arab approach towards India and Pakistan, the former ambassador to India recalled that during his time in India, the Palestinian ambassador to New Delhi enjoyed the privilege of meeting the Indian prime minister at any time he wished to do so. But as the Islamic phenomenon spread and some Arab policies acquired a religious tint, India grew visibly suspicious of the Arab and Islamic worlds. To make things worse, Arab diplomacy in India was lackadaisical over the past two decades ... We have lost India so far for no good reason, I should say .... It is time we mend this error. It is time to bring Arab countries closer to both India and Pakistan, rather than take one side or keep our distance altogether. I believe the Arabs have only themselves to blame for India's change of heart on the Palestinian question."
 

Abir

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
221
Likes
53
Do you know whom the Palestinians are going to approach first in the UN and for what- and then the back up plan?
How does it matter, US will veto the resolution and there goes the bid down the Euphrates!
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Post #105:
^^

Great find and good job!

I will highlight some portions:

India wishes to have access to US and Israeli technology, particularly in the development of weapons.

we have made the error of viewing the Indian-Pakistani conflict from an Islamic perspective. We have tried to "Islamise" the ongoing conflict in South Asia, posing as protectors of Islam and custodians of the international community.

We have lost India so far for no good reason, I should say .... It is time we mend this error. It is time to bring Arab countries closer to both India and Pakistan, rather than take one side or keep our distance altogether. I believe the Arabs have only themselves to blame for India's change of heart on the Palestinian question.

Some Arabs do realise their follies. Indeed, India has had a change of heart. Again, we must continue to provide medical and humanitarian aid, when needed, to Palestine, but extending political support? No. The entire Arab world needs to come back, unaimously as in the OIC, and prove to India that they are worthy of Indian friendship, which they have hitherto ignored for Pakistan's sake.

That exactly is my point.
 
Last edited:

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
That is exactly the point. Once the UN guarantees Palestine recognition. Then the two state solution becomes official and HAMAS gets isolated further hence their opposition to the UN bid. I guess I should also remind that the Arab League supports the two state solution as well and under the Arab Peace initiative of 2002, it has already launched a proposal that upon Israel's recognition of Palestine, All Arab League countries would not only recognize Israel but will also establish full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.

HAMAS then becomes isolated and it no longer can oppose the two state solution especially when the entire Arab League would be behind this solution. The comparison with Kashmir as I mentioned does not gel because they are two different situations. We Indians really need to come out of this complex if we are to address problems logically. Its basically falling for that Pakistani trick of making the two same. Please don't fall for it.
Ezar- maybe I have NOT explained it well.

1.Hamas is the majority preference In Palestinian.
2.It is the party that will win the majority upon full fledged elections.
3.Even if the UN approves Palestinian state, Hamas will not accept it... the ruling elected body then soon becomes Hamas( because no more divided elections with Pales) and the 2 state solution goes out of the window.

i.e what I've been trying to say for the longest is as long as Hamas is in power ( elected) this statehood if approved ( which it won't be) would create havoc to the two state solution.

Now , the other thing I've been trying to explain to folks is there are TWO things the Palestinians are going for:

1. Recognize as a STATE period- @ UN security council
2. Recognize as an " Observer State"- taken to UN members outside the P5 itself ( that will pass - but it makes it dangerous situation for Israel too and that messes up 2 state solution)
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
How does it matter, US will veto the resolution and there goes the bid down the Euphrates!
Read post #108 to understand that there are two things in play not just the one thing everyone here seems to harp on...people are not actually aware of what the Palestinians are asking for and from whom..
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Ok, so the condition of unanimity means all OIC members will stay united no matter what. That means, even if Pakistan is wrong, they will refuse to condemn them for the sake of this stupid unanimity. Fine. So let the Arab World stay unanimous and let us abstain from this Palestinian thingy.
And in a way the Arab League is the forum where the Pakistanis don't count. The link earlier showed that the ambassador to India made a statement on Kashmir IN J&K about basically not interfering in India's internal matter. Not to mention, India is an observer member of Arab League while Pakistan afaik is still not.

And comparing OIC's impotence and the history of listing a large number of conflicts is this not an over reaction? Russia and China have been highlighted a number of times, Russia in fact a lot more than India but still Putin went ahead with his Russia-Islamic World conference. China agreed to host the OIC SG in Xingiang. And both already recognize Palestine and hence are backing the Palestinian bid in the UN.

The Abstention makes sense if we had NOT yet recognized Palestine. The fact that we already recognize Palestine along with three quarters of the world and on the principles reiterated by Obama and George W Bush as well as past Israeli PMs including Bibi just shows that backing the UN bid is nothing but a formality.


Mujahideen camps are receiving funds from Arab countries since the times of the Soviet-Mujahideen War. Even today, Pakistan based terrorist organisations write grants to influencial figures in Arab countries for funding, and this happens with the complete knowledge of at least the Saudi government.

The only Arab (not sure if they are majority Arabs) country, as you rightfully stated, that explicitly supported India, was Iraq.

When you talk about arms and money, it was also backed by the US, western europe, Israel and even China among others. What is ironic is that Israel was confiscating Soviet weapons shipped to the PLO( The PLO was a secular leftist organization if you recall). And these weapons were then sent to Pakistan which would channel them back to the so called "Mujahideen". Again, this would not make any sense as being a basis to abstain on the Palestinian UN bid. The Arab countries "supporting" the "Mujahideen" did not like leftists secular groups like the PLO or govt.s in Iraq and Syria which also aligned with the USSR on global issues.

And while there may be wealthy individuals donating to terrorists groups, the Saudi govt. has done far more than any to really clampdown on funding as well as sources of terrorism in terms of manpower as well as ideology. The Americans appreciate and GoI has also received positive co-operation as well. And GoI has received help from other GCC states like Oman and UAE too. Almost all countries have signed security and extradition treaties as well with India. It is for no reason that the UN and US has asked the Saudis to establish an anti-terror centre in New York. gulfnews : Saudis sign deal with UN to establish global centre to combat terror

Our problem is that India-specific terror is sourced from Pakistan and not Arab countries. If Pakistan did even half of what the Saudis did, the situation would be drastically different. Ofcourse these are again separate to this particular issue but we can discuss this further in another thread. There is a thread specifically on Saudi Arabia here http://defenceforumindia.com/asia-p...n-years-after-9-11-managing-u.html#post317100

Oh, those remittances are just a fraction of what should come back because many people are lured by false promises in these Arab countries and exploited while their respective governments turn a blind eye, but then that is a different thread.

My point is I am disillusioned of the NAM era Nehru-Nasser Friendship and we should be pragmatic in how we deal with the Arab World. It is their choice. They can unanimously condemn Pakistan (if required, kick Pakistan out and condemn) or refuse to do so. India's foreign policy should not be caught up in any nostalgia.
Ofcourse there are many sad and condemnable cases of worker abuse. But a large majority of the expat community do their work in dignity without getting involved in political or criminal causes and Indian expats are valued for this. And Indian expats have done very well here. A 2005 report counted 33,000 Indian millionaires in UAE alone (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/w...b-spring-will-mean-for-them.html?pagewanted=2).

And if the GoI really starts taking care of its citizens, then unscrupulous employment agencies both in India and abroad that are responsible for exploitations can be curtailed. There are already some improvements such as the e-attestation system for UAE news.outlookindia.com | India, UAE Sign MoU on Manpower.

And 100% agree that Foreign policy should be dedicated to Indian interests. A show of fraternity and all is well and good but that is not the bottom line. We have strategic interests both with Israel and the Arab world, Iran e.t.c. and all these need to be balanced. And GoI has been historically been quite adept at walking the tightrope so to speak. Trade, defence ties, counter terrorism and support in International multilateral bodies like UN all should be taken into account when deciding on a course.

If there was say a UN bid to boycott Israel and trade relations with it, then India should not only abstain but vote against. But this is not the case. We recognized Palestine in 1988 as did Russia and China e.t.c. And we are only reiterating that same position. No change or status quo is what a for vote is in this case. In fact, its a good deal seeing that its pretty much rhetorical support and India really does nothing else and continues its ties with Israel bilaterally.
 

Abir

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
221
Likes
53
Read post #108 to understand that there are two things in play not just the one thing everyone here seems to harp on...people are not actually aware of what the Palestinians are asking for and from whom..
I think we are discussing full member status of Palestine, I don't see any harm of them becoming an observer state, it's just a token gesture.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Ezar- maybe I have NOT explained it well.

1.Hamas is the majority preference In Palestinian.
2.It is the party that will win the majority upon full fledged elections.
3.Even if the UN approves Palestinian state, Hamas will not accept it... the ruling elected body then soon becomes Hamas( because no more divided elections with Pales) and the 2 state solution goes out of the window.

i.e what I've been trying to say for the longest is as long as Hamas is in power ( elected) this statehood if approved ( which it won't be) would create havoc to the two state solution.

Now , the other thing I've been trying to explain to folks is there are TWO things the Palestinians are going for:

1. Recognize as a STATE period- @ UN security council
2. Recognize as an " Observer State"- taken to UN members outside the P5 itself ( that will pass - but it makes it dangerous situation for Israel too and that messes up 2 state solution)
Hi JayATL,

You are basing all your conclusions on the dubious case that HAMAS has majority support among Palestinians. The fact is that this is not true. The reason why HAMAS has been afraid to have another election since it last won is because it knows it will loose support. Here are poll results of The Israel Project that did an Opinion survey of West Bank and Gaza in the July 2011 period. Israel Project: Poll results of Palestinian public opinion | Just Journalism

On the question of who would they vote for in elections the responses were
The top 3 choices, as a percentage, were as follows:

Fatah Movement"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.46

Change and Reform (Hamas)"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ 17

The Popular Front"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.. 5

A further 14 per cent were either 'undecided,' or would not vote at all.
If the choice is restricted between only HAMAS and Fatah
Hamas"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.. 16

Fatah"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦. 48

(Neither) "¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ 27

(Don't know/Refused)"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦8
In other words, HAMAS would not win an election if it was conducted freely and fairly today.


Finalising the two state solution ASAP is in Israel's interest. Because if this is not done soon, then there is growing demand that Palestinians should ask for a one state solution with equal rights for all and to give the right to vote for those people living in the West Bank and Gaza. And if this becomes a non-violent mass movement the likes of what British India saw or the one led by Nelson Mandela led in South Africa, it would become very difficult for Israel.

Ofcourse, that does not mean that the Palestinians can score a self goal by turning to violence and messing it all up. But why take the risk?
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
And in a way the Arab League is the forum where the Pakistanis don't count. The link earlier showed that the ambassador to India made a statement on Kashmir IN J&K about basically not interfering in India's internal matter. Not to mention, India is an observer member of Arab League while Pakistan afaik is still not.

And comparing OIC's impotence and the history of listing a large number of conflicts is this not an over reaction? Russia and China have been highlighted a number of times, Russia in fact a lot more than India but still Putin went ahead with his Russia-Islamic World conference. China agreed to host the OIC SG in Xingiang. And both already recognize Palestine and hence are backing the Palestinian bid in the UN.

The Abstention makes sense if we had NOT yet recognized Palestine. The fact that we already recognize Palestine along with three quarters of the world and on the principles reiterated by Obama and George W Bush as well as past Israeli PMs including Bibi just shows that backing the UN bid is nothing but a formality.





When you talk about arms and money, it was also backed by the US, western europe, Israel and even China among others. What is ironic is that Israel was confiscating Soviet weapons shipped to the PLO( The PLO was a secular leftist organization if you recall). And these weapons were then sent to Pakistan which would channel them back to the so called "Mujahideen". Again, this would not make any sense as being a basis to abstain on the Palestinian UN bid. The Arab countries "supporting" the "Mujahideen" did not like leftists secular groups like the PLO or govt.s in Iraq and Syria which also aligned with the USSR on global issues.

And while there may be wealthy individuals donating to terrorists groups, the Saudi govt. has done far more than any to really clampdown on funding as well as sources of terrorism in terms of manpower as well as ideology. The Americans appreciate and GoI has also received positive co-operation as well. And GoI has received help from other GCC states like Oman and UAE too. Almost all countries have signed security and extradition treaties as well with India. It is for no reason that the UN and US has asked the Saudis to establish an anti-terror centre in New York. gulfnews : Saudis sign deal with UN to establish global centre to combat terror

Our problem is that India-specific terror is sourced from Pakistan and not Arab countries. If Pakistan did even half of what the Saudis did, the situation would be drastically different. Ofcourse these are again separate to this particular issue but we can discuss this further in another thread. There is a thread specifically on Saudi Arabia here http://defenceforumindia.com/asia-p...n-years-after-9-11-managing-u.html#post317100



Ofcourse there are many sad and condemnable cases of worker abuse. But a large majority of the expat community do their work in dignity without getting involved in political or criminal causes and Indian expats are valued for this. And Indian expats have done very well here. A 2005 report counted 33,000 Indian millionaires in UAE alone (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/w...b-spring-will-mean-for-them.html?pagewanted=2).

And if the GoI really starts taking care of its citizens, then unscrupulous employment agencies both in India and abroad that are responsible for exploitations can be curtailed. There are already some improvements such as the e-attestation system for UAE news.outlookindia.com | India, UAE Sign MoU on Manpower.

And 100% agree that Foreign policy should be dedicated to Indian interests. A show of fraternity and all is well and good but that is not the bottom line. We have strategic interests both with Israel and the Arab world, Iran e.t.c. and all these need to be balanced. And GoI has been historically been quite adept at walking the tightrope so to speak. Trade, defence ties, counter terrorism and support in International multilateral bodies like UN all should be taken into account when deciding on a course.

If there was say a UN bid to boycott Israel and trade relations with it, then India should not only abstain but vote against. But this is not the case. We recognized Palestine in 1988 as did Russia and China e.t.c. And we are only reiterating that same position. No change or status quo is what a for vote is in this case. In fact, its a good deal seeing that its pretty much rhetorical support and India really does nothing else and continues its ties with Israel bilaterally.
I really like post #105.

W.r.t. your post, yes, you have provided plenty of relevant facts; yet, I linger in the abstinence camp.

The Arab World is realising that they have ignored India and let them come and meet us halfway. So far, they are facing the Pakistan bottleneck.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
Good poll find ( i hope attitudes are changing now), and let's keep in mind it's just one poll... barrack Obama was losing by similar margins when polled in early 2008 during his presidential primary run.

Even so- even if you take that poll as the absolute truth. Fact that Hamas has a large minority- nothing will get passed on the 2 state solutions in their political system. They will use their seats to block the majority.

Hamas and as long as they are in their anti-two state mode / remove Israelis completely - giving statehood is a dangerous for both sides. The fatha side and israel side. Here is an example:

Hamas got Gaza right- Israelis gave it up, walked away -They, Hamas, could have shown the world a peaceful side right? What did they do, they lobbed rockets at Israel from it. So now tell me how Israel agreeing to anything with Hamas having even 1/3 of seats in parliament is going to help the 2 state solutions sustain itself? Hama's ideaology and Militray wing won't let it happen..
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
I think we are discussing full member status of Palestine, I don't see any harm of them becoming an observer state, it's just a token gesture.
NO it not a gesture- They are an Observer " entity" right now , by making them Observer " state" - they have rights to go to international criminal courts and rights to call things like the blockade criminal.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
You are basing all your conclusions on the dubious case that HAMAS has majority support among Palestinians. The fact is that this is not true. The reason why HAMAS has been afraid to have another election since it last won is because it knows it will loose support. Here are poll results of The Israel Project that did an Opinion survey of West Bank and Gaza in the July 2011 period. Israel Project: Poll results of Palestinian public opinion | Just Journalism

On the question of who would they vote for in elections the responses were


If the choice is restricted between only HAMAS and Fatah


In other words, HAMAS would not win an election if it was conducted freely and fairly today.
It was felt earlier that Hamas would not win and yet the won hands down.

What are the indications that Hamas will not win?

The Arab League itself is not serious to resolve and the important ones are but US protégés.

Therefore, this issue will go on for quite sometimes.
 
Last edited:

Blackwater

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
21,156
Likes
12,211
India is playing political card. By supporting Palestine bid he making arabs and muslims happy... .we all know usa and uk will veto. so we all know wat is end result...
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
There is no thing as friend in geo politics.

This is not us vs them...it is all about interests.
What is the direct strategic benefit that India can get out from Palestine for voting in its favor in the UN? Oil? Defense techs? IT partnerships?

Actually, there is none. You're previous post has not illucidated concrete benefits that India can be gained from voting in favor of Palestinian statehood except to preach that India will find itself at the wrong side of the fence with "a lot of countries" if it votes against the measure. Sounds like India is buying into a fad...
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Some Arabs do realise their follies. Indeed, India has had a change of heart. Again, we must continue to provide medical and humanitarian aid, when needed, to Palestine, but extending political support? No. The entire Arab world needs to come back, unanimously as in the OIC, and prove to India that they are worthy of Indian friendship, which they have hitherto ignored for Pakistan's sake.

That exactly is my point.
Another point that I wanted to add was that the Saudis along with GCC countries mainly have been trying a lot through backchannels to improve relations between India and the OIC. This would allow India to blunt Pakistani moves and if India becomes a member, India can veto any move on Kashmir since everything has to be done through consensus in any case.

You might recall King Abdulla publicly making a call on formalizing India's membership to the OIC back in 2006. Of course Pakistan continues to vehemently oppose this but it is something to be taken note of any another forum that can be used to isolate Pakistani positions on Kashmir. Why should be ignore this forum and leave it as a playground for Pakistani shenanigans?

Here is an excerpt from an editorial in the Saudi daily Arab News written by Abdul Aziz Sager. He is the chairman of the influential think tank Gulf Research Centre which incidentally also has a relationship with India's IDSA.

Time to end India�s isolation in OIC
The OIC stresses that as long as the Indo-Pak tension over Kashmir remains unresolved, there is very little room for improvement in the organization's relations with India.

While the OIC advocates the issue of self-determination and resolution of Kashmir in accordance with the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949, India is firm about resolving the issue bilaterally with Pakistan.

This [i.e. resolving the issue bilaterally] stand has been receiving increasing international acceptance, and appears to be the most viable option to resolve the Kashmir issue.

The debate here is not about Kashmir or about Pakistan. The larger concern is the Muslim world and what it stands to gain with India finding a foothold in the OIC. It is also natural that India would also gain reciprocal diplomatic benefits through such a move.

While the longstanding Kashmir issue is important enough to be resolved not only for the sake of the people therein, peace in the subcontinent and the Asian continent at large, it is equally important for the OIC to look beyond this issue and address more pressing concerns of the Muslim world. It must also be argued that while the OIC Charter stipulates that only Muslim countries willing to promote the objectives of the organization are eligible for membership, many non-Muslim countries have secured observer status and even full membership. The most recent is Russia, which came on board as an observer in 2005, two years after then President Vladimir Putin declared that Russia was a "Muslim power" that desired to play a role among Muslim countries. With less than 25 million Muslims in its ranks, the real reason may have well been Moscow's attempt to assuage the Muslims over Chechnya and increase its influence in the Islamic world in order to tip the balance in its favor in its power politics with Washington.

Thailand — a predominantly Buddhist country — received the same recognition in 1998. It is also an irony of sorts that the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India is a founding member and has several non-Muslim countries, got observer status in 1977. Why not India, then?

India is making rapid progress in terms of its influence in the international arena, not just as a trillion-dollar economic powerhouse, but also as a military and technological giant, all combining to make it a political heavyweight.

Given the current buoyant state of the Indian economy amid a bleak world scenario, India's formal association with the OIC could help forge mutually beneficial economic deals.

Equally important are factors that were highlighted by Hamid Ansari in 2006. The former diplomat and current Indian vice president said India deserves to be an OIC member, not just an observer, because though India is not a part of the Muslim world, "it is not away from it; not a Muslim majority state in statistical terms yet host to the second largest community of Muslims in the world; not a society focused on Muslim welfare only but one in which Muslims, as an integral part of a larger whole, get the attention that every other section does."

As a result, a formal place for India in the OIC would add to the collective credibility and bargaining power of the organization. The OIC would be able to leverage India in relation to important issues of the Muslim world. This would help the OIC address the "state of disunity" among Muslims, which many see as one of the worst in 14 centuries of Islamic history.

In a post-9/11 21st century, the Muslim world faces numerous challenges — poverty, terrorism, calls for political reform and unemployment. In addressing these and implementing the Ten-Year Program of Action that was laid out at the OIC Summit in Makkah in 2005, India's experiences would be more of an asset than a liability — especially envisaging joint action to promote tolerance and moderation, modernization, extensive reforms in all spheres of activities including science and technology, education, trade, and good governance and promotion of human rights.

With more than 150 million Muslims, most of them part of the world's largest democratic process, India deserves to be associated with the OIC. It is also important to note that many OIC members are sympathetic to the idea.

At the same time, one needs to also see the issue from the angle that by denying India any role in the OIC, one is, in fact, abandoning the duty of promoting the interests of the Muslim population of India.

Thus, just like summits have been called in the past to search for common ground among members of the Muslim world on various issues, would it be too far-fetched to call another to find consensus over formalizing India's OIC connection?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top