Made-in-India ‘killer’ drones fly in Gaza sky as Israeli genocide rages on: Report
Press TV – February 13, 2024
An Indian conglomerate has dispatched Hermes 900 killer drones to Israel as the UAVS are extensively used in the regime’s indiscriminate bombing campaign in the Gaza strip amid the genocidal war, a report says.
The sale of more of than 20 Hermes 900 medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) UAVs delivered by Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India Ltd to Israel was first reported on February 2 by Neelam Mathews for the defense-related website Shephard Media.
The Wire report said it has not yet been publicly acknowledged by either Tel Aviv or New Delhi.
In 2018, Israel’s Elbit Systems entered into a joint venture with Adani group with a 49% share and opened a $15-million facility in Hyderabad to manufacture UAVs for the first time outside of Israel.
The Wire said when it contacted Israel’s Elbit Systems a spokesperson responded that they could “confirm that Elbit Systems collaborates with Adani, which is a supplier to our UAS [Unmanned Aerial Systems] supply chain.”
Haaretz reported last February that the vice president of UAV systems in the Aerospace Division at Elbit Systems, Vered Haimovich, said the Hermes 900 has been Elbit System’s flagship drone, which has been operationally used by the Israeli Air Force since 2015. It has also taken part “in all rounds of conflict in recent years.”
Indian activists have criticized the Indian government for its double standards against Palestine, as on one hand, New Delhi backs the Palestinian cause while advocating for a free Palestinian state, but on the other, its actions suggest it supported Israel’s actions in Gaza.
After Israel unleashed a war on Gaza on October 7 following Hamas Operation Al-Aqsa Strom into the occupied territories, India initially expressed unconditional solidarity with Israel.
New Delhi had even abstained on a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for a humanitarian pause in October 2023. However, two months later, it voted in favor of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
The role of an Indian conglomerate in supplying drones, which are extensively used by the IOF for attacks in densely populated urban areas in Gaza, came as the prime minister Narendra Modi government’s official position is seeking an immediate ceasefire.
Shir Hever, the coordinator responsible for enforcing the military embargo on behalf of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, expressed his disapproval of India’s current alliance with Israel, deeming it disgraceful considering India’s extensive past under colonial domination.
“This moment is a test of the international law system, and instead of siding with Israel’s genocide and its enabling of Western powers, India should take inspiration from South Africa’s global-south leadership and end its complicity with genocide,” Hever told Middle East Eye.
He also said that ever since the International Court of Justice said it’s “plausible” Israel committed genocide in Gaza, two Japanese firms ended their MoUs with Elbit, while, a Dutch high court banned the Netherlands from continuing its export of F-35 parts to Israel, “citing a clear risk of violations of international law.”
In another such instance, on Monday, the European Union foreign policy Chief Josep Borrell called on the US to cut arms supplies to Israel due to high civilian casualties in its war in Gaza.
Adani, a 60-year-old multi billionaire and one of the richest persons in the world, was accused in a report by a US investment research firm, Hindenburg’s Research LLC, of stock manipulation and accounting fraud last year, and is seen by many as someone very close to Modi and his government.
India’s Modi inaugurates Hindu temple on site of razed mosque ahead of elections
Press TV – January 22, 2024
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inaugurated a controversial temple that was built on the site of a historic mosque, demolished by Hindu extremists, heralding a “new era” for India.
“January 22, 2024, is not merely a date in the calendar but heralds the advent of a new era,” Modi said, speaking outside the temple to the Hindu deity Ram on Monday.
Modi has been accused of orchestrating the event for political gain ahead of the upcoming elections in the spring.
The opening ceremony was seen as an unofficial start to his re-election campaign this year, where he will seek a third term in power. The general election is expected to be held between April and May.
The inauguration of the temple, which came amid rising anti-Muslim hate crimes in India, has evoked blood-soaked memories of the violence that was sparked after the mosque that stood for centuries in Ayodhya was torn down in 1992 by Hindu far-right mobs incited by members of Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Some 2,000 people, most of them Muslims, were killed in the violence.
Speaking to media, Mohammed Shahid, 52, recounted how his father was burned alive by a mob.
“For me, the temple symbolizes nothing but death and destruction,” he told AFP last month.
Ever since it came to power in 2014, the BJP has been synonymous with its anti-Muslim stance as there have been recurring incidences, including mob lynching and hurting the sentiments of minority groups, especially of the Muslims of India.
Modi has been setting his sights on winning a third straight term by pleasing the Hindu majority in India.
Sunita Viswanath, executive director of the US-based nonprofit group Hindus for Human Rights, said the inauguration of the temple is an “electoral stunt” that “should not be happening in the name of my faith.”
India gets a rude awakening in West Asia
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | JANUARY 12, 2024
From the standpoint of affirming ‘solidarity’ with the regime of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the October 7 attack, India has swung away to the far horizon and has unceremoniously dumped the US-Israeli axis, which provided beacon light to Delhi’s West Asian policies in the past few years.
From a strategic asset, the Israeli connection is becoming a liability for the Indian government. Delhi spurned Netanyahu’s repeated entreaties to brand Hamas as a terrorist organisation — by the way, India never pointed finger at Hamas for the October 7 attack. It has resumed the traditional stance of voting against Israel in the UN General Assembly resolutions on the Palestine problem. The Netanyahu-Modi pow-wows have become infrequent.
This is a far cry from the controversial gesture by PM Modi during his ‘historic’ five-day visit to Israel in 2017 to pay homage at the tomb of the founding father of Zionism Theodor Herzl in Haifa. It is doubtful if any Indian prime minister would repeat Modi’s feat in the future. With reasonable certainty, it can be said that the future of Zionism in West Asia itself looks rather bleak.
Again, for reasons that remain obscure even today, India decided to be a strong votary of the ill-fated Abraham Accords that purportedly aimed at ‘integrating’ Israel into the Arab fold but, in reality, to isolate Iran in its neighbourhood. Delhi never provided a rational explanation for such a dramatic shift in the traditional policy not to take sides in the intra-regional fratricidal strife in West Asia or identify with the US hegemony in that region.
Delhi followed up by enthusiastically lining up with a surreal venture called ‘I2U2’ which brought together India and the UAE with the US and Israel as a condominium to promote the spirit of the Abraham Accords. In an extravagant gesture, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar paid a 5-day visit to Israel to participate in ‘I2U2’.
Above all, Delhi, which hosted the G20 Summit last year and was supposedly highlighting the rise of the Global South in the world order, instead ended up arranging photo-ops for the visiting US President who hijacked the event and instead catapulted a phoney, laughable idea as the main outcome of that historic event — the so-called India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC).
The US apparently incentivised Delhi by planting the patently absurd thought that IMEEC would toll the death knell for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China of course retaliated by just hoisting the BRI flag high all over the Maldives (population: 515,132 in the 2022 census) on India’s soft underbelly from where it is visible all over the subcontinent day and night.
However, Indian diplomats are quick learners and course corrections come naturally to them. Delhi has understood that such absurdities in its West Asian policy will do no good and may even be counterproductive as they raise hackles in the Arab Street. Thus, Qatar ticked off India recently by ordering the 15 Indian schools in Doha that cater to the needs of the largely-Hindu 700,000-strong Indian ex-patriate community to ignore Hindu holidays, especially Diwali.
Consistent with the championing of the Global South, India should have voiced support for South Africa’s brilliant initiative to petition the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to bring Israel to justice for its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. After all, it was in South Africa that Mahatma Gandhi had finessed the concept of resistance to racialism. But, alas, India lacked the courage of conviction and the moral fibre to do so.
It is too much to expect the ICJ to put Netanyahu in a cage and try him in the Hague court for his abominable acts against humanity. But there is a strong likelihood that with tacit western support, the ICJ may issue in the coming weeks some sort of interim order for a ceasefire. And in the present atmosphere, that can prove to be a game changer.
All this makes India’s decision to stay clear of the US’ harebrained idea of disciplining Yemen’s Houthis a sensible step. The theatre of the absurd playing out in the Red Sea with the Five Eyes in the cockpit is incredibly complicated. One main vector there is about the phenomenon of the Houthi resistance as such.
An old friend and Beirut-based editor-in-chief of the Cradle, Sharmine Narwani tweeted about the quagmire in the Red Sea that awaits the Anglo-American attack on Yemen today:
“I honestly question whether the US or UK have carefully considered #Yemen‘s potential responses to this act of war. Ansarallah (Houthi) is an unusual member of the region’s Axis of Resistance. It marches to its own tune and its mindset is entirely devoid of western narrative grooming. There is no guessing at the full spectrum of its retaliatory palette, but I would not want to be an American or Brit in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, or any of the neighbouring waterways right now.
“It may be that Washington misread the Russian and Chinese abstentions at the UNSC yesterday (on Red Sea). Or, perhaps Moscow and Beijing dangled that bait so the US would miscalculate this badly. The Americans are now militarily engaged, supplying, or bogged down on 5 separate fronts: Ukraine, Gaza-Israel, Yemen, Iraq, Syria. US adversaries can easily hold out until the fatigue sets in; they are nowhere near depleted.
“Bottom line is I think the entire Global South is going to be wearing Abdul Malik al-Houthi t-shirts by springtime.”
Indeed, it is such prescience that is often lacking in India’s West Asia strategy. This is not a region for one-dimensional men. It has been a strategic mistake to be aligned to the US and its allies in the Indian Ocean under the rubric of ‘maritime security’. The erstwhile colonial powers are innovating Neo-mercantile mechanisms to transfer wealth to their metropolis. Why should Indians act as ‘coolies’, as during British rule?
Most important, India should be seized of the Renaissance that is sweeping through the Muslim countries in West Asia. It is epochal in its sweep and has cultural, political and economic dimensions — and will inevitably have far-reaching geopolitical significance. That is why, it becomes imperative that Delhi stops viewing the region though Netanyahu’s Zionist eyes. It is important to terminate India’s collaboration with the US and colonial powers such as France and the UK to interfere in the region on the pretext of maritime security in the Indian Ocean.
India has no reason to have institutionalised partnerships with the US Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT). In a conceivable future, the curtain could well be descending on the western military bases in West Asia. Delhi should grasp the reality that something fundamentally changed post-October 7 in the geopolitics of West Asia.
It is in sync with what Germans call the zeitgeist (spirit of the times) that Saudi Arabia is demanding that the security of the Red Sea is an international responsibility in cooperation with the riparian countries and UN support. Since 2018, Saudi Arabia has called for the establishment of a Council of States bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and in 2020, eight countries signed the Council’s founding charter, who include, ironically, Yemen. Saudi Arabia plans to host a summit meeting of the Council of States.
Today’s Anglo-American missile strike against Yemen should come as a rude awakening to India messaging that the very same western powers who are backing Israel are also escalating the conflict in Gaza and step by step transforming it as a regional conflict — all in the name of freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia, the regional superpower in the Red Sea, has called on the US to exercise restraint.
India deploys warships to Arabian Sea following attack on Israeli-linked ship
The Cradle | December 26, 2023
The Indian Navy has deployed three guided missile destroyers to the Arabian Sea in response to an alleged drone attack on an Israeli-linked chemical tanker last week.
New Delhi also uses long-range maritime patrol aircraft for “domain awareness,” the defense ministry reported Monday night.
On Saturday, the Liberian-flagged MV Chem Pluto, a Japanese-owned tanker traveling 370km off the coast of India, was reportedly hit by a kamikaze drone, according to the Pentagon.
The Israeli-linked tanker had been on its way from Saudi Arabia to India, according to maritime security firm Ambrey.
The Indian Navy says they are examining the specifics of the attack on the MV Chem Puto, which managed to anchor in Mumbai on 26 December.
Although Indian officials say a preliminary evaluation suggests a drone strike, they emphasize that additional forensic and technical examinations are necessary to determine the exact method of attack.
Washington blamed the attack on Iran, saying the drone had been launched “directly” from the Islamic Republic.
“We declare these claims completely worthless,” said Nasser Kanaani, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, on Monday.
“Such claims are aimed at projecting, distracting public attention, and covering up for the full support of the US government for the crimes of the Zionist regime in Gaza,” he added.
Saturday’s drone attack came less than a week after the US announced the formation of the so-called Operation Prosperity Guardian, described by US officials as a new “coalition of the willing” that seeks to counter the threat posed by Yemen in the Red Sea.
Although the Yemeni armed forces have been conducting the attacks against Israeli-linked vessels of their own accord, the Pentagon insists Iran is somehow involved.
“The [Yemeni] resistance has its own tools […] and acts by its own decisions and capabilities,” Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri told Mehr News Agency on Saturday.
“The fact that certain powers, such as the US and the Israelis, suffer strikes from the resistance movement […] should in no way call into question the reality of the strength of the resistance in the region,” he added.
India Jumps on Washington’s ‘China Containment’ Bandwagon
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 15.12.2023
China’s fast-expanding global influence – especially, in the context of the Gaza war – has already emerged as a key issue for Washington. The US is already in a state of denial, and China’s rising global status is turning into too big an issue for New Delhi to handle without entering into a formal anti-China alliance being put together by the US. Therefore, there is an added incentive for New Delhi to reinforce its alliance with the US in an even more anti-China way. This was the major development out of the fifth annual US-India “2+2 dialogue” held on November 10, 2023, in India. As a result, India is reinforcing Washington’s global position on almost all key flashpoints, ranging from Ukraine, and Palestine to the Indo-Pacific region.
The joint statement that came out of New Delhi points in this direction. The statement noted both countries as “natural and trusted partners” seeking “to promote a resilient, rules-based international order with respect for international law, including the UN Charter, sovereignty and territorial integrity” and taking steps to develop a joint approach to “developments in the Indo-Pacific, Middle East, Ukraine among other regions. The ministers expressed mutual deep concern over the war in Ukraine and its tragic humanitarian consequences”.
The joint vision is a prelude to a strategic alliance between New Delhi and Washington. For decades, India championed ‘non-alignment’. But, in the wake of profound shifts in the world due to the two ongoing military conflicts in Eastern Europe (Ukraine) and the Middle East (Palestine), the geopolitical landscape is shaking badly, forcing a great many countries to adjust their positions.
The fact that India is essentially reinforcing Washington’s position against China (and even Russia vis-à-vis Ukraine) means that India is also supporting Washington against two of its key competitors with a view to neutralising their bid to make the world multipolar. This is the key part of India’s shifting foreign policy. Where India might have previously sensed a place for itself in a multipolar world, that dream remains far from close to being realised within today’s polarised global context. Its reason is that the struggle between the US and China, on the one hand and between Russia and NATO, on the other hand, has strengthened US rivals far more than it has benefitted the US. The fact that China is gaining influence means the gap between India and China is, instead of shrinking, fast expanding. China’s economy is already five times larger than India’s, with a GDP of US$ 17.7 trillion versus India’s GDP of US$ 3.2 trillion. The same goes for both countries’ military power.
It makes sense for India to, at least for now, drive its growth and rise within a bipolar world. And, to achieve that, New Delhi has decided to shake hands with Washington. It needs to have Washington on its side in order to neutralise what New Delhi sees as China’s hegemonic rise in Asia and beyond.
With a view to presenting a competition to China, both Washington and New Delhi are also targeting Afghanistan, where the Taliban appear to have developed strong working ties with Beijing. Notably, the logic of Beijing’s normalised ties with the Taliban is underpinned by non-interference in questions and issues of Afghanistan’s politics and society under Taliban rule. While short of recognition, the Taliban’s ties with Beijing – and the fact that Kabul has been successful in largely preventing terror attacks on Chinese interests in Afghanistan – has strengthened the group’s claims to power. For China, these ties matter because Afghanistan is a strategic territory within Beijing’s BRI projects. Therefore, China became the first country to appoint a formal ambassador to Kabul in October, and both countries are already talking about opening the Wakhan Corridor to boost trade and ultimately open a new territorial link between China and Central Asia via Afghanistan.
However, the US and India see these developments differently. Whereas Washington sees it as yet another diplomatic success for China and a step towards the consolidation of its Silk Roads projects, for India, Beijing’s success means that its hopes for developing any ties with the Taliban have shrunk significantly. There is, therefore, an incentive for New Delhi to join hands with Washington to attack the Taliban because it cannot possibly compete with China in Afghanistan. It is for this reason that Afghanistan featured prominently in the meeting. The joint statement basically sought to de-legitimise the Taliban (to internationally complicate China’s terms of engagement with the group) when it said that,
“The Ministers called on the Taliban to adhere to their commitment to prevent any group or individual from using the territory of Afghanistan to threaten the security of any country, and noted UNSC Resolution 2593 (2021), which demands that Afghan territory not be used to threaten or attack any country or to shelter or train terrorists, or to plan or finance terrorist attacks”.
The statement also targeted the Taliban’s handling of human and women’s rights. This growing convergence could have crucial implications for the future of Asia. India’s growing willingness to toe the US line could significantly militarise Asia. New Delhi is all set to host the next meeting of the QUAD, a group comprising India, the US, Australia, and Japan. Although it is not yet a military alliance, it appears to be moving in this direction due to the recent emphasis we have seen on the security aspect in the “2+2 dialogue”. To quote the joint statement,
“The Ministers reaffirmed the importance of a free, open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific and renewed their shared desire to consolidate their dialogue and collaboration through the Quad. They emphasized the important role of the Quad as a force for global good for the peoples of the Indo-Pacific.”
Being seen as a “force for global good” only implies the idea that the US and India see a lot of geopolitical potential in the alliance in terms of achieving a common global objective, i.e., keeping the US-led “rule-based” international order intact. While the US has long been pushing for making the QUAD a military alliance, India’s close embrace of the US will significantly facilitate this possibility.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
India’s solidarity with Israel is untenable
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 29, 2023
India’s muscular diplomacy, an attribute of the present government, has run into heavy weather. Body blows from multiple sources — spat with Canada; Maldives’ triumphalism about evicting Indian servicemen; China-Bhutan normalisation, etc. — testify to it.
On top of it comes the latest diplomatic faux pas at the UN GA over the Gaza situation and a not-entirely unrelated shock and awe dealt out by Qatar over the past week. Doha has handed down death sentences to eight Indian ex-naval officers on charges of spying for Israel.
Whichever way one looks at the Explanation of Vote (EoV) on Thursday’s UN General Assembly resolution on Gaza, India’s abstention was a mistake. Simply put, our diplomacy has become entrapped in our solidarity with Israel.
The topmost consideration for India at the UN GA debate should have been that the draft was tabled by the Arab and OIC countries with whom India has fraternal ties, and, second, it called for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce” in Gaza, which is an urgent necessity.
Yet, France outclassed Indian diplomacy, exposing the need for more creative UN diplomacy on our part. France not only sought that some reference to Hamas’ raid into Israel on October 7 be made in the draft, but while on a recent visit to Tel Aviv, President Emmanuel Macron even proposed an alliance of like-minded countries to take on Hamas militarily.
Yet, when the crunch time came, France ultimately voted for the Arab resolution and issued an EoV justifying it. As France saw it, the imperative need today is to stop the fighting and the compelling reality is the importance of being on the right side of history when it comes to the Middle East crisis, where it has high stakes. The point is, in the final analysis, what stands out for the record is the actual voting, not the EoV.
It was apparent that the Canadian amendment — at Israel’s behest and sponsored by Washington from the rear — was a clumsy attempt to divide the votes by calling for “unequivocally rejecting and condemning the terrorist attacks by Hamas.” In a notable speech that drew wide acclaim, Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN Munir Akram highlighted the contradiction.
If Canada was being fair in its amendment, he said, it should as well agree to name Israel as well as Hamas. “We all know who started this. It is 50 years of Israeli occupation and the killing of Palestinians with impunity,” Akram argued, therefore, not naming either side was the best choice.
It appears that India was taken aback by Akram’s intervention at the UN GA during Agenda Item 70, Right to Self-Determination where he forcefully linked the Palestine issue and Kashmir problem. Alas, India’s abstention has only left the centre stage to Pakistan to occupy. This could be consequential. A prudent course would have been to identify with the stance of the Arab countries unequivocally, since this is a core issue for them and it is playing out in their region, first and foremost.
India should have factored in that feelings are running high in the West Asian region and the US-Israeli propaganda that the Arab world paid only lip-service to the Palestinian cause doesn’t hold good. There is unmistakable anger and anguish among the regional states and a groundswell of opinion has appeared demanding a settlement of the Palestine issue as an imperative of regional stability.
Fundamentally, the tectonic plates in regional politics have shifted following the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement under China’s mediation, which in turn triggered new thinking in West Asia giving impetus to a focus on development. Equally, the regional states prefer to address their issues increasingly on their own steam without external interference. China and Russia understand this but the US refuses to see the writing on the wall.
Therefore, it will prove to be damaging to our interests if a growing perception crystallises that Indians are carpetbaggers. The Indo-Israeli fusion through the past decade hasn’t gone unnoticed in the Muslim countries. They resent it, perhaps, but it may not surge into view because Arabs are a hospitable people. That said, their resentment may surface if push comes to shove and their core interests are involved.
The US-Israeli attempt to put the lid on the region’s growing strategic autonomy is one such core issue. It is far from the case that the regional states — be it Qatar, Iran, Egypt, Syria or even Turkey — do not understand that the Biden administration’s grandiloquent idea of a India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor is in reality a wedge to disrupt the nascent trends of unity among regional states so as to insert Israel into the regional processes and rekindle the flame of sectarian schism and geopolitical rifts, which the US invariably exploited to impose its hegemony in West Asia historically.
That is why, the three-way Qatar-India-Israel tangled mess of espionage, which should never have been allowed to happen, becomes a litmus test of mutual intentions in the geopolitics of the region. Lest it is forgotten, Qatar and Israel had once collaborated since the mid-nineties to prop up Hamas as an Islamist antidote to the secular-minded PLO under Yasser Arafat.
In a recent interview with the Deutsche Welle, former Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert disclosed, inter alia, “We know that the Hamas was financed with the assistance of Israel— for years — by hundreds of millions of dollars that came from Qatar with the assistance of the state of Israel, with the full knowledge and support of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu.”
That convergence — rather, Faustian deal — ended in 2009 following the three-week Gaza Massacre by Israel, whereupon, Doha drew closer to Tehran. Nonetheless, a pragmatic relationship continued, and in 2015, the Qatari government facilitated discussions between Israel and Hamas in Doha in search of a possible five-year ceasefire between the two parties. Suffice to say, Indian diplomacy is swimming in shark-infested waters. The news from Doha this week is a wake-up call.
Equally, our public discourse on Hamas as a terrorist organisation and our branding of that national liberation movement is surreal, to say the least. Although it may be difficult today for the government to openly deal with Hamas, it shouldn’t be that we lack a proper understanding of Islamism. If ever a Palestine settlement comes to fruition, Hamas will have a lead role in it as the fountainhead of resistance. India’s political elite must bear in mind this reality.
Eliminating the Hamas from the political landscape is no longer possible, given the massive grassroots support it enjoys among the Palestinian people, which is of course a proven fact in the successive elections held in Gaza and West Bank.
10 reasons why India’s stance on Gaza is unsustainable
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 9, 2023
The Indian reaction to the massive eruption of violence between Hamas and Israel on Saturday belies ground realities and ignores the geopolitical environment in that region and globally in which this cataclysmic event merits careful appraisal. It will prove to be unsustainable and can damage the country’s interests and standing globally.
One, Indian policy has blatantly tilted toward Israel. What has been a matter of speculation assumed habitation and a name when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tweet on Saturday underscored India’s “solidarity” with Israel.
The resonant expression signifies a historic departure from India’s consistent stance on the Palestine issue, which followed, quintessentially, the footfalls of Gandhiji who had the prescience and vision to oppose the creation of Israel on Palestinian homelands in the cruel manner in which the Western powers imposed that geopolitical construct on West Asia.
What prompted this radical shift on an issue where angels fear to tread remains a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Two, Delhi had the benefit of a “preview” of what is to follow in Gaza in the coming weeks or months. Prime Minister Benjamin proclaimed that the “enemy will pay an unprecedented price” and promised that Israel would “return fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known.” He declared war on Gaza.
Netanyahu’s capacity for mindless violence is a legion. Yet, Delhi rushed in to react at an emotional, subjective level.
Three, the possibility of a ground offensive and even occupation of Gaza is real. Simply put, India’s patented mantra that ‘this is not an era of wars’ obliges it to mark distance from Netanyahu. But instead, India risks taking a virtual partisan in the carnage that is to follow — politically, morally, diplomatically.
At such a crucial juncture, at the very least, our government being a ‘Vishwa Guru’ who tirelessly propagates the notion of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakaam (The World is One Family), gets exposed, warts and all. India’s role should be of a unifier rather than divider.
Four, India’s reaction is clearly at odds with the sentiments of the Global South. For, other than the ‘collective West’, India becomes a lone ranger in the Global Majority that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel. Empathy with victims of violence is one thing, but political support for the collective West (which is what this entails, in reality, in the prevailing climate in world politics) is another thing.
Two days after Vladimir Putin praised Modi’s India sky-high as a stellar example of a civilisation state role model in a multipolar world in a landmark speech addressing an elite audience, distinguishing it from the predatory neo-colonial Western powers, India negated his thesis.
There is no question that the Indian stance exposes the paradox of its self-appointed claim to be the leader of the Global South. When the crunch time came, Indian elites showed their true colours.
Five, Israel’s reaction, which is already under way, is expected to be massive, unremitting and ruthless. An Israeli occupation of Gaza is a high probability, howsoever foolish that might eventually turn out to be. Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant’s chilling words vowing to “change the reality in Gaza” will mean that increasingly, it will become difficult for the countries of the region and the Global South —and even the ‘friends of Israel’ in the US and Europe — to remain passive.
India has dug itself a foxhole from where it will be difficult to come out saving face and battered reputation and credibility.
Six, troubling questions arise in regard of India’s credentials to be a UN Security Council permanent member. Whose interests, after all, does India represent other than its self-interests? This becomes a daunting question for which there are no easy answers. Succinctly put, the fruits of decades of hard work by successive Indian leaderships and diplomats are being squandered away.
Seven, all wars come to an end through negotiations. But this incoming war will be a long and wide-ranging one. The wily politician in Netanyahu, who is under immense pressure domestically, facing personal legal charges and holding on to power with the help of ultra-nationalist and right-wing partners, will seize the opportunity to salvage his reputation as Israel’s great protector and rally the political and security establishment in his country, which is deeply divided, and shall be in no hurry to sit at the negotiating table with Hamas.
On the other hand, American intention will be to claw its way up the greasy pole of West Asian politics after the Iran-Saudi rapprochement. In a major display of force, a vast armada of warships and planes is slouching toward East Mediterranean. How this force projection will pan out remains to be seen.
The temptation will be there to reimpose US hegemony in West Asia and to project President Biden as a decisive leader at a time when, on the one hand, his re-election bid in the 2024 election is wide open and, on the other hand, the spectre of a humiliating defeat in Ukraine haunts his presidency.
Suffice to say, the political interests of Biden and Netanyahu are coalescing and the stench of Israel’s war will likely touch the heavens and may even engulf other countries in the region as time passes. The Indian leadership will be hard-pressed to demonstrate its friendship and bonhomie with Netanyahu in an apocalyptic scenario.
Eight, Modi government might as well say goodbye to the grand idea of building an Indo-Arab economic corridor to Europe in a foreseeable future. That means, Haifa Port, which was acquired by the Adani Group in a “strategic purchase” at a reported cost of $1.13 billion with Netanyahu’s blessing, will be underperforming. Smart economic diplomacy entailed fostering Arab-Israeli amity.
Nine, Indian government has blithely ignored that Israel is a state sponsoring terrorism. Optics matter in politics and international affairs, and at a time when India’s own credentials are under Western scrutiny, it is doubly important that it is careful in its words and behaviour. There is an old saying, ‘Show me your friends and I will show you your future!’ If the intention is to fly on the wings of the Israeli lobby in North America — or to catch Biden’s eye — it smacks of naïveté, to say the least.
Finally, India should know that in the final analysis, sins are forgotten and forgiven when a political movement that might have had uses of violence in its toolbox commands the overwhelming support of the masses. Indeed, that is how it should be. By that yardstick, Hamas passed the litmus test decades ago, much before the BJP formed a government in 2014.
Hamas today is the unquestioned leader of Palestinian aspirations, towering head and shoulders above peer groups and is a mainstream interlocutor for the regional powers. It even has a representative office in Moscow. Clearly, the Indian reaction, which tends to view the current development as a ‘stand alone’ event of terrorism, is anachronistic.
An enduring Palestinian settlement will have to be inclusive and will include Hamas after the audacity of hope it has displayed. The BJP leadership should educate its provincial leaders with tunnel vision on international affairs that Islamism is not to be equated with terrorism in the global commons, especially the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood to which Hamas belongs.
China and India have ‘low intellectual potential’ – top Zelensky aide
RT | September 13, 2023
The people leading India and China lack the ability to predict the long-term consequences of their policies, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has claimed.
Mikhail Podoliak pointed to what he called “the problem of the modern world,” singling out India and China, in an interview with Ukrainian media on Tuesday.
“The problem with these countries is that they do not analyze the consequences of their own moves. These countries, unfortunately, have low intellectual potential,” he said.
Podoliak suggested that even though India has a lunar exploration program, it “does not mean that this nation understands what the modern world precisely is.”
The dismissive remarks were in the context of Beijing and New Delhi’s refusal to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow. Podoliak complained that India, China and Türkiye were “profiting” from the war by maintaining trade with Russia.
“Technically, it is in their national interests,” he acknowledged, before presenting his view of what would benefit China in the long-run.
“China should be interested in Russia disappearing, because it is an archaic nation that drags China into unnecessary conflicts,” he claimed.
“It would be in their interest now to distance themselves from Russia as far as possible, take all the resources it has, and take part of the Russian territory under their legal control. In fact, they will do that,” he added.
Following the interview, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman urged Podoliak to clarify his remarks, when asked about them during a media briefing on Wednesday.
Podoliak has a record of lashing out at nations, organizations and public figures seen as not sufficiently supportive of Kiev.
Among his latest targets was Pope Francis, whom he had branded an “instrument of Russian propaganda” who “continues to reduce the influence of Catholicism in the world to zero.” The pontiff had encouraged Russian Catholics to cherish their nation’s historic legacy.
The Ukrainian official also recently hit out at Elon Musk, who Podoliak claimed “enabled evil” by refusing Kiev’s request to use his Starlink communications system to launch drone attacks against the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Podoliak isn’t the first high-ranking Ukrainian official to make derogatory remarks about Asian countries. In August, Aleksey Danilov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, suggested that Asian people were less humane compared to Europeans, including Ukrainians. “I’m fine with Asians, but Russians are Asians. They have a completely different culture, vision. Our key difference from them is humanity,” Danilov said.
US role in Pakistan chaos is obvious and logical
RT | August 16, 2023
A recently leaked secret diplomatic cable revealed that the United States had pressed Pakistani diplomats to seek the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan in 2022. Khan, who was ousted from office later that year, was not a supporter of the US or its geopolitical agenda, and had sought closer ties with both China and Russia.
Ejected from the leadership, Khan was quickly arrested and then banned from participating in politics. Then, within the same week, Pakistan signed a new defence agreement with the US, affirming age-old ties between Washington and the Pakistani military elite, who have long formed the backbone of the state.
This is no conspiracy theory, it’s very easy to see what has gone on here. The US has engaged in a subtle regime change operation in Pakistan; an unusual choice given its simultaneous pursuit of stronger ties with India. This shows the ambitions of the US to play the two countries against each other and assert its own military domination over the South Asian region, using India as a pawn in its struggle against China, while simultaneously blocking the strategic rise of India by using Pakistan as a counterweight to it.
First of all, we must understand that the US ‘Indo-Pacific strategy’ is tailored toward one thing: hegemony. That is, ensuring the explicit strategic dominance of the US over the Pacific and Indian Oceans by containing the rise of China, but also ensuring that no rival power emerges. While India is seen as a critical partner by Washington in containing Beijing, one should also understand that this does not mean the US consents to India, a nation of 1.4 billion people with enormous economic potential, becoming a superpower and taking control of the region. A Pax Indica is not a Pax Americana, because India’s foreign policy is premised around its maintaining strategic autonomy and a “neighbourhood first” doctrine.
While India-China tensions are high, the biggest, most direct and historic military threat to India is of course its neighbour, Pakistan. Traditionally, Washington has maintained a very strong military relationship with Islamabad, as it was an ally in the war on terror in Afghanistan and is a huge buyer of US military equipment. India in turn, always resented US support of Pakistan, which was one reason the countries never got too close in the early 2000s. However, as the strategic environment changed, Pakistan tilted toward China, and India toward the US. Beijing became the biggest economic backer of Islamabad through the Belt and Road Initiative, seeking to create the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a new route to the Indian Ocean to bypass the waters the US was militarising, as well as the Indian subcontinent itself.
Under the leadership of Imran Khan, Pakistan’s foreign policy increasingly took on an anti-Western stance. He embraced China wholeheartedly, distancing himself from the US while increasing defence ties with Beijing. In addition, Khan also sought closer economic ties with Russia, having visited Moscow on the day the military operation in Ukraine began. However, with Pakistan being such a geostrategically important country, the US found Pakistan’s foreign policy direction increasingly disruptive to Washington’s own interests, and therefore lobbied for Khan’s removal. Although the US relationship with India has been growing simultaneously, Washington is not interested in creating an “either/or” situation on the Indian subcontinent where the US backs India and China backs Pakistan. Rather, it seeks to divide and conquer.
The existence of Pakistan, a nation with over 200 million people and nuclear weapons capability, is a useful military and strategic check on the power of India. India may be bigger than Pakistan, and will of course be the more successful country in the long run too, but Pakistan will always be a potent threat which can never be fully removed. In the eyes of US strategists, why should Pakistan be purely China’s strategic benefit? What the US wants is to enjoy favourable relationships with both Pakistan and India, so that it might be able to use them against each other, and profit accordingly. The US may be backing New Delhi right now, but it should be known this does not mean Washington consents to the rise of New Delhi as a rival power when the only acceptable vision the US has for the world is unipolarity.
If the US succeeds in containing China and strategically subordinating it, India will be its next target. How will Washington go about that? It will create strong relationships with all of India’s neighbours and will then purvey a narrative that New Delhi is a “bully” and “aggressor” and use that to boost its military and economic relationships with them. Who will be top of the list? Pakistan, of course. The US sustains its power by backing small countries against big ones, and then presenting itself as the only defence and security guarantor.
For that reason, the US has overseen the removal of Imran Khan and reasserted its defence relationship with Pakistan. Washington does not want a Pakistan that is a partner of Russia and China, and a global advocate of Muslims. It wants to see Islamabad and New Delhi in a contest with each other, using US-supplied equipment, then framing itself as the peacemaker, saviour and, ultimately, overlord.
Five Reasons Why India Could Mediate A Russian-Ukrainian Ceasefire
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JULY 11, 2023
There’s a growing consensus that the failure of Kiev’s NATO–backed counteroffensive and Moscow’s edge over NATO in their “race of logistics”/”war of attrition” will result in the resumption of Russian-Ukrainian talks in some form by the end of the year as was explained here. This will at the very least be aimed at reaching a ceasefire, but Zelensky is prohibited by the Rada from conducting talks with Russia, ergo the need for a mediator. Here are five reasons why India could play this role:
———-
1. The US Wants To “De-Sinify” The Peace Process
China has the diplomatic power to implement its plan for freezing the NATO-Russian proxy war, but only if the US allows Kiev to participate in talks under its aegis, which is unlikely to be approved. There’s no way that Washington would let its systemic rival go down in history as the country that helped end the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, with it instead preferring to “de-Sinify” the peace process by having someone else play this role in order to deprive Beijing of that diplomatic victory.
2. Russia Might Not Trust Turkiye To Mediate Again
Turkish President Erdogan’s violation of the Azovstal deal that he reached last year with his Russian counterpart might have irreparably damaged trust between them to the point where President Putin no longer feels comfortable with Turkiye mediating between it and Kiev ever again. In that case and considering the seeming inevitability of talks resuming in some form by year’s end, then it therefore follows that Russia, Ukraine, and the US would have to agree on someone else to mediate in its place.
3. India Is Much More Appealing Than South Africa
Apart from South Africa, India is the only major country that’s consistently abstained from all anti–Russian UNGA Resolutions, thus proving its neutrality towards the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. Unlike Pretoria, however, Delhi isn’t a party to the ICC and its ties with Moscow are no longer criticized by Washington. These two factors combine to make India much more appealing than South Africa as Turkiye’s possible replacement for mediating between Russia and US-controlled Ukraine.
4. Russia & The US Have Excellent Relations With India
The decades-long Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership has impressively weathered unprecedented Western pressure upon it over the last sixteen and a half months while the Indian-US Strategic Partnership was recently strengthened without doing so at the expense of Moscow’s interests. Each of those two Great Powers have natural interests in further elevating India’s rapidly rising role in global affairs, hence why they could prospectively agree on having it mediate Russian-Ukrainian ceasefire talks.
5. The Optics Of Indian Mediation Are Acceptable To All
Russia and the US are competing for hearts and minds across the Global South so each would gain from the optics of them requesting the “Voice of the Global South” to mediate. Both would also receive supplementary benefits by doing so too: Russia wouldn’t have to worry about whatever compromises it might make being spun for divide-and-rule purposes as “Chinese-dictated”, while the US can present India’s prestigious diplomatic role as proof that the “Asian Century” doesn’t mean a “Chinese Century”.
———-
State Department spokesman Matt Miller confirmed on Monday that “we welcome a role that India or any other country could play” in stopping this conflict, which signaled that it could replace Turkiye if Russia no longer regards the latter as a trusted mediator. Should Delhi be interested, then it should begin talks with both about this right away because time is of the essence as other players vie for the chance to go down in history for helping end the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II.
