Why did Vajpayee play host to Sharon

Sharon had to cut short his trip after suicide bombing killed 15 persons in Israel on 9th September. In a joint communiqu‚, India and Israel declared themselves partners in the "war against terrorism" after bilateral talks at New Delhi. The two sides reportedly signed six agreements which included accords on fighting drug trafficking and environmental protection. India's Prime Minister would pay a visit to Israel in the near future.

Ariel Sharon ( son of a Russian Jewish immigrant) has been a controversial politician whose strong headedness and ruthless conduct against Palestinians are well-known. He had to resign as a Defence Minister in 1982 after an Israeli judicial enquiry held him responsible for the massacre of Palestinian women and children refugees in Sabra and Chatilla in Lebanon.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The visit was marked by angry protests by Indian Muslims and left-wing parties who opposed to Sharon's hard line policies that have aggravated the violent confrontation with the Palestinians. There were some unflattering editorials as well in India. On 10 September BBC reported that protesters in Kolkata burnt the Israeli flag and an effigy of Israeli Prime Minister.

Although diplomatic relations were set up 11 years ago, the relations between them were discreet and kept in a low profile. However when the BJP-led government under Vajpayee took power in 1999, bilateral relations have gradually warmed up, although maintained at a low key. India's BJP leaders are well aware of political and economic ramifications of closer ties with Israel because of possible negative reaction from Muslim world including Pakistan. China may also consider the visit as a potential destablising development in the sub-continent.

The question is: Why did Vajpayee play host to Israel's Prime Minister? There are many possible reasons for it and some of them are described below:

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, India felt vulnerable in its security against two countries China and Pakistan. Soon it aligned itself with the US, the lone superpower. The US quickly embraced it because India could be used as a counter-weight to China whenever needed for strategic reasons. The climax of US-India relations rose to its peak when President Clinton visited India in 2000 for almost five days while he had a brief stop-over in Pakistan. Clinton gave a simple message to international community that India was a regional power and it commanded respect and due recognition from all.

After the September 11 attacks, the Pakistan-US relations took a dramatic positive turn when President General Musharraf of Pakistan ditched its support for the Taliban regime and supported the US in its war against Afghanistan in 2001. To the US Pakistan is strategically more important than India in its war to remove the Taliban regime and the network of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Pakistan became very close to the US and received handsome dividends. President Musharraf who came to power in a coup in October 1999 replacing the then constitutional government headed by Mian Nawaz Sharif (now in exile in Saudi Arabia for 10 years) got a political life line and Pakistan's isolation from the West disappeared.

Meanwhile the Kashmiri militants have been waging an armed struggle with Indian security forces since 1989 for their self-determination. Since then about 70,000 persons were killed in Kashmir. India accuses Pakistan of lending its armed support to the Kashmiri militants while Pakistan strongly denied its role except its moral and diplomatic support to them.

India's Parliament in New Delhi came under attack from militants in December 2001 leaving 13 dead. Pakistan-based militant groups Jaish-e-Mohammad and Laskar-e-Taiba were allegedly held responsible for the attack. India attempted the US to call the militants in Pakistan terrorists. The US hesitated and distinguished the Kashmiri militants from other terrorists because of Pakistan's possible adverse reaction. The Bush administration did not want to undermine the strategic alliance with Pakistan at a time when its war on terrorism in Afghanistan would continue. India was disappointed at the stance of the US.

Political observers believe that both India and Israel face Islamic militancy for their policy of stubbornness. However they do not see anything wrong in pursuing this policy and both feel sympathy for each other. Israel has occupied Palestinian lands since 1967 war while India keeps major a part of Kashmir within India, contrary to UN Security Council resolution calling for a plebiscite to decide its fate.

India is well aware that American foreign policy is being disproportionately influenced by strong Jewish lobby in the US. Furthermore President Bush's close advisers are ardent supporters of Israel at the cost of Arabs. It is possible to argue that the strategy for India to placate the Jewish lobby is to cultivate close relations with Israel. If Israel is pleased with India, it will help India in changing US policy in strategic and political terms.

In other words, when India failed to convince the Bush administration to exert pressure on Pakistan not to provide material assistance to the Kashmiri militants, Israel's lobby is likely to do that job splendidly on India's behalf. In return, it is believed that Israel wants India to change its voting pattern in the UN and international forums and that India should no longer initiate anti-Israeli resolutions in these forums.

Relations between the two countries have been underpinned by burgeoning Israeli armaments sales. It is reported that India spends as much as US$ 2 billion a year on Israeli ordnance and military technology exports. During the visit it is reported that Israel may negotiate a deal worth US$ 1 billion for supply of Phalcon early warning airborne radar system ( last month the US lifted its objections to Israel selling India its Phalcon warning system). Israeli radars reportedly will be used on India's Russian-made Ilyushins.

The Phalcon deal, according to BBC, has added weight to what some analysts are describing as a developing three-way axis between the US, India and Israel. Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin reportedly said: " Our contacts with India are definitely a triangular strategic relationship, in line with the US stance on terror".

In the domestic context, next year India's Prime Minister will face general election. The situation in India-administered Kashmir appears to be a big embarrassment for the Vajpayee government. If Israel can change the US policy towards Pakistan, it will bring great political dividends for the BJP-led government in election. It is a gamble worth taken by BJP-led government in New Delhi.

China and Pakistan have been watching closely the developments. It was reported that President Musharraf wanted an internal debate whether it should recognise Israel. This move is seen to counter-act consequences of growing close Indo-Israeli relations.

Pakistan's Foreign Minister Kasuri told reporters in Dhaka where he was on a visit that

"India and Israel are trying to change the strategic balance in the region by pouring in a wide range of sophisticated weapons and strategic defence system". The statement means that Pakistan will not be a silent spectator to the imbalance in the region.

In other words Pakistan will ensure that strategic balance is restored as early as possible.

Israeli Prime Minister's visit to India has added another complication in dynamics of South Asian political and strategic architecture. Arms race is likely to follow in the region if India buys sophisticated radars from Israel. Already South Asia is a troubled region because of animosity between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. The visit could have been avoided at a time when relations with Pakistan were improving but India's BJP-led government thought it otherwise. Only future will tell how far India's strategic interests have been served through this visit.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.