The hidden enemies of India – the foreign media.

Facing enemies across our nation’s borders is an everyday affair for the Indian governments, over the last 75 years. These enemies are conspicuous and have an overt intension of fighting our country for their beliefs. But now we face a new enemy in the form of foreign media outlets who spread malicious lies, misinformation and fake new.

The leading news agency in this war against India is the Thomson Reuters corporation based in Toronto, Canada. Reuters has an interesting past. It was founded by German born Paul Reuter who worked at a book-publishing firm in Berlin and was involved in distributing radical pamphlets at the beginning of the ‘Revolutions of 1848’ which were a series of political upheavals throughout Europe that started that year. It remains the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history to date.

In its current form, where Reuters is a part of the Thomson media group, its anti-establishment behavior has not changed. This media company refuses to call terrorists as ‘terrorists’, as part of its “value – neutral values”, which basically means that it has no values to adhere to.

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman rebuked Thomson Reuters for selling access to key economic survey data two seconds early to high-frequency algorithmic traders. The story strongly suggested that some Thomson Reuters customers were using their two-second head start (an eternity in the modern world of computerized trading) to front-run the markets.

From being accused for working with Western Intelligence agencies to promote their governments agendas across the world, to being sued for breach of contract by its employees, this company has been in a number of controversies. The Thomson family itself is full of controversies, hidden away behind a wall of legality. Theirs is a world where trust is illusive, motives are suspect and opportunists abound. Relationships are mediated by lawyers, litigation chisels away at personal relationships, private lives are defined as "exclusive property" in confidentiality agreements.

In the spring of 2003, a grand jury in USA called in a probe of a private detective named Anthony Pellicano who allegedly was involved in spying activities on behalf of a Thomson family member. It was not the first time the Los Angeles private detective's name had surfaced in relation to Thomson's legal disputes. Pellicano first provided aid to Taylor Thomson (heir to the Thomson Corporation’s fortune) in early 2002, and the indictment suggests he continued working on her case over the ensuing months. In late 2002, FBI agents raided the offices of Pellicano and uncovered a cache of illegal explosives. Pellicano later pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to 30 months in jail. But what investigators also unearthed in the detective's offices were transcripts of recorded conversations, tapes and computer files, which led to an intense investigation. Pellicano now faces charges connected to a vast espionage operation, whose targets may have included Thomson's legal adversaries.

This private detective and some of his clients are said to have used illegally gathered information to secure "a tactical advantage in litigation by learning their opponents' plans, strategies, perceived strengths and weaknesses, settlement positions, and other confidential information."

In 2020, Reuters announced that it was mobilizing and expanding its fact-checking unit to fight misinformation on social media, but was itself spreading misinformation on a regular basis. In August 2022, Reuters had been accused by the Government of Turkey for targeting that country by publishing misleading and fake news.

On June 9, 2020, three Reuters journalists Jack Stubbs, Raphael Satter, and Christopher Bing personally visited India, and incorrectly used the image of an Indian herbal medicine entrepreneur in an exclusive story titled: "Obscure Indian cyber firm spied on politicians, investors worldwide". Raphael Satter initially claimed that they had mistaken the man for the suspected hacker Sumit Gupta because both men share the same business address. A check by local media however showed that both men were in different buildings and not as claimed by Raphael Satter. The prominent investigative journalist later acknowledged that the false story was published without proper investigation with the purpose to spice up the tale.

Thomson Reuters as an organization never accepts its role in the spread of fake and misleading news. In 2018, it ran a “poll” that ranked India as the most dangerous in the world for women. When challenged by Indian journalists; Belinda Goldsmith, editor-in-chief of the Thomson Reuters foundation stated that the report was “not based on Data but on perception”, and that it was researched with a sample of 548 responses in a country of 1.3 billion people.  Goldsmith never acknowledged this story as fake, nor did Reuters apologize for publishing an untrue and misleading story.

In October 2022, in a propaganda piece published in 'Context' (a media platform run by Thomas Reuters Foundation), its journalist Rina Chandran alleged that disinformation, which supposedly originated in India, was the cause of Hindu-Muslim unrest in Leicester city in England’s East Midlands region. Rina Chandran has a history of peddling fake news. For years now, Chandran has been using social media platforms to vilify India and make false allegations. In April this year, Chandran resorted to scaremongering and spreading fake news alleging that Hindu goons in India were destroying Muslim livelihoods, but without providing any evidence to prove her claims.

When caught, the usual defense of Thomson Reuters is that they are a “wire service” that compiles reports from across the globe and forwards these reports to its consumers in an “unbiased” manner, thereby putting the onus of responsibility onto the reporters. In reality however, Thomson Reuters promotes news from leftist–liberal reporters, in a manner that barely keeps it from stepping into the domain of fake news, but firmly within the domain of misrepresented news; which they later either withdraw or issue corrections upon; after the required damage has been done.

Reuters mostly targets countries in Asia as part of the North American – British – European propaganda. It pretends to be an upstanding organization that promotes high ethical standards against corruption and calls itself a defender of human rights; while ignoring the fact that politicians in Europe have caught indulging in massive corruption, and those in North America are frequently abusing the rights of their own citizens.

In conclusion, any news from Thomson Reuters has to be considered as fake and anti–India propaganda, without any reservations whatsoever.

 

 

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-1827088090084063"
     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Scams of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)

To listen to this article click the link...  

A well-known British voice actor; Norman Shelley's voice was used to broadcast some of the most important words in modern British history - including 'We shall fight them on the beaches'. It is marked 'BBC, Churchill: Speech. Artist Norman Shelley' and stamped 'September 7, 1942'.

It would be difficult to list all the controversies that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been involved in since its inception, as there have been many. Some notable ones include:

·         The Jimmy Savile scandal: In 2012, the BBC was criticized for its handling of child sexual abuse allegations against the late BBC presenter Jimmy Savile. The scandal led to the resignation of several senior BBC executives, and an independent review found that the broadcaster had a "deferential culture" that allowed Savile to abuse victims on BBC premises for decades.

·         The Newsnight scandal: In 2012, the BBC's Newsnight program was criticized for cancelling an investigation into child sexual abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile. The decision was later revealed to have been made by the then-editor of the program, Peter Rippon, without consulting senior management. The fallout from the scandal led to the resignation of several senior BBC executives, including then-Director General George Entwistle.

·         The Panorama-Princess Diana scandal: In 1995, the BBC's Panorama program aired an interview with Princess Diana in which she made a number of personal revelations about her marriage and the royal family. The interview, which was conducted by journalist Martin Bashir, was criticized for its unethical tactics, including the use of fake bank statements to gain Diana's trust.

·         The Hutton Inquiry: In 2003, the BBC was criticized for its coverage of the Iraq War, specifically the death of weapons expert David Kelly. The broadcaster reported that the government had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify the war, but the subsequent Hutton Inquiry found that the BBC's reporting was "unfounded" and that the broadcaster had failed to follow its own editorial guidelines.

·         The Gender Pay Gap Scandal: In 2017, the BBC was criticized for its gender pay gap, with some accusing the broadcaster of paying female employees less than male employees for the same work. The scandal prompted the BBC to publish the salaries of its top earners, revealing a large disparity between the salaries of men and women.

·         In the 1980s, the BBC faced controversy over the airing of a documentary called "Real Lives: At Death's Door," which depicted terminally ill patients in a hospice. Some viewers and healthcare professionals deemed it exploitative and in poor taste.

The BBC is known for being deceitful and corrupt right from its inception. As former Prime Minister Winston Churchill publicly stated in 1954, "I am against the monopoly enjoyed by the BBC. For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists—probably with Communists".

The seeds of BBC’s unholy alliance with the British Foreign Office is not new. In 1969, Reuters agreed to open a reporting service in the Middle East as part of a British Foreign Office plan to influence the international media. In order to protect the reputation of Reuters, which may have been damaged if the funding from the British government became known, the BBC paid Reuters “enhanced subscriptions” for access to its news service, and was in turn compensated by the British government for the extra expense. The BBC paid Reuters £350,000 over four years under the plan.

On 30 January 2011, the BBC broadcast an episode of its motoring TV show Top Gear during which presenters referred to Mexicans as both "lazy" and "feckless" and Mexican food as "refried sick". The broadcast caused many complaints in Mexico, including in newspapers and websites, while a motion of censure was considered in the Mexican senate. Jeremy Clarkson, one of the presenters, expressed doubt that there would be any complaints against them as, he alleged, the Mexican ambassador would be asleep. British MPs described the comments as "ignorant, derogatory and racist" and called on the BBC to say it was sorry. The BBC then offered an apology, though it claimed there was no "vindictiveness" in the remarks and that they were just part of the stereotype-based comedy the organisation espoused, such as when it "make[s] jokes about the Italians being disorganised and over dramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being over-organised". Even in its apology, the BBC managed to insult three European nations.

BBC’s false news against India is not a new phenomenon. The BBC's 50-year-old flagship weekly current affairs program Panorama had aired a documentary claiming that Bangalore-based suppliers of Primark, a hugely successful retailer with 220 stores across Europe, were using child labor in their production in 2008. This claim has been found to be untrue and the BBC apologized to Primark admitting its mistake.

The British Broadcasting Company, as the BBC was originally called, was formed on 18 October 1922 by a group of leading wireless manufacturers including Marconi. There were no rules, standards or established purpose to guide this organization. Through innovating, experimenting and organising, the service began to expand. Throughout its existence, the BBC has proved itself to be unworthy of any respect as a media company, has worked closely as possible with the British Foreign Office to destabilize other nations, and to create dangerous controversies based on fabricated and false information.

The ongoing controversy created by the BBC documentary to defame the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi; is just another attempt to sabotage political, social and economical relationships between India and the UK, for which the UK will ultimately pay a heavy price.

Here endeth the lesson. 

 

  

 

 

 

Temples of Doom: Foreign Universities in India!

 On 5^th January of this year, the UGC (university grants commission) announced the draft regulations for ‘setting up and operating campuses of foreign higher educational institutions in India’, in pursuant to the New education policy [NEP] 2020; whereby such (foreign) universities will be given the freedom to decide their governance and content norms on par with autonomous institutions of India.

This basically seems to indicate that foreign universities will have the freedom to devise their own curriculum and admission process. The draft resolution states that fees have to be ‘reasonable and transparent’, which is rather ambiguous and open to any interpretation. The other parts of this draft deals with annual reports, maintaining accounts and most importantly, empowering the UGC to inspect, regulate, interpret and also terminate the permissions of foreign universities to operate in India.

This entire proposal is based on a series of self-delusional thought processes by the bureaucrats of the UCC.

Firstly, education in India is the cash-cow of politicians who own and operate private institutions and universities without having to bother with the quality of education delivered or the skill sets mastered by the graduating students of such ‘temples of learning’. Beyond that, political interference is a regular feature in government run educational institutions. Does the UGC really expect that politicians will not only allow better standards of competition against their business of education, but that they will not interfere in the functioning of the foreign universities? The very premise of freedom to operate in India has already been negated by the UGC itself by self-empowerment of the UGC “to inspect, regulate, interpret and also terminate the permissions of foreign universities to operate in India.”

The next issue that the UGC has failed to clarify is their policy towards reasonable and transparent fees. As per this draft policy, foreign universities are required to set-up world class physical facilities in India, which means a heavy investment in land acquisition and construction. Land values in India are unjustifiably high due to faulty land policy and political corruption. The lengthy, complicated and expensive ‘approval process’ for construction has been designed to ensure that land supply remains constrained and prices remain high. The other factor is ‘greasing the wheels’ of government officials at every stage. European and American laws prohibit their citizens from indulging in corruption and they can be severely punished when malfeasance is discovered. A recent example is the EU Vice-President who was removed from office and arrested for corruption. Does the UGC really believe that foreign universities will indulge in corruption, just because it’s our bureaucratic culture? Taking everything into account, and the expectations of foreign universities for a quick RoI (return on investment), the fees the students will be expected to pay might be prohibitive for the majority of Indian students.

How about the issue on reservations and quota? Foreign universities are unlikely to compromise on the quality of their student intake or offer discounts in their fee structure. In January 2019, the Narendra Modi government amended the Constitution of India to ensure 10% reservation in admissions to the economically backward among upper castes (in addition to the other reservation categories already in existence for the backward castes and minorities), and announced that these reservations will be extended to private universities as well as public ones. With deep discounting in the fees by government mandate, private universities will have to basically write-off fees from the reserved seats, thereby affecting their financial income negatively. Will the UGC make this policy mandatory for the foreign universities they are inviting into India?

Another point that will become contentious is that English language will be the preferred language of delivery of curriculum in foreign owned universities. This will create agitation among local politicians who will protest that the imposition of English would give it enhanced importance and revert society to the yesteryear of the British raj.    

The cultural impact of foreign universities being allowed to operate in India is a dangerous proposition. Racism against Indians is prevalent in various US academic institutions like the University of Pennsylvania, while the universities of Berkeley, Emory, Toronto, Goettingen, and the University of Illinois; had no hesitation in sponsoring and promoting the conference on “Dismantling Global Hindutva” that had been announced from 10-12 September 2021. This politically prejudiced campaign was promoted as an ‘academic event’, and was reportedly co-sponsored by over 50 American universities, including Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, Northwestern University and New York University. Rutgers University regularly sponsors and pays the anti-India activist Audrey Truschke for her systematic attacks on the culture of India, while Prof Meena Dhanda of Wolverhampton University has openly called for the annihilation of Brahmins of India, and the university has supported this view by refusing to take any disciplinary action against her. Has the UGC bureaucrats taken into consideration, this anti- India hatred that is prevalent in foreign universities, before proposing the draft regulations for ‘Setting up and operating campuses of foreign higher educational institutions in India’?

The other most important aspect is the reason that certain sections of Indian students take admissions in universities abroad, is migration and settlement in foreign countries. These students are either from rich families or their families take huge loans just for the singular purpose of settling their children abroad for, as per their view, a better and richer lifestyle. Why will students consider studying in foreign university campuses in India, if it does not fulfill the critical requirement of migrating and settling abroad?

Finally, India should be the leader in international education by increasing the standards through our own resources and becoming a global higher education destination with our own capabilities, rather than off-loading this important responsibility onto foreign universities.

Disclaimer: This article is a 100% human effort and has not been generated using artificial intelligence! 

 

Socialism, communism, fascism, and Nazi philosophy - the differences

 This article is generated using ChatGPT Artificial Intelligence platform.

Socialism, communism, fascism, and Nazi philosophy are all different ideologies with their own distinct beliefs and principles.

Socialism is an economic and political system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state or the community as a whole. This system is based on the idea that the wealth of a society should be distributed more equally among its members. Socialists believe that the government should play a larger role in managing the economy, and that social welfare programs should be expanded to ensure that all citizens have access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and housing.

Communism is a political and economic ideology that aims to create a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the community as a whole. Communists believe that the working class should overthrow the capitalist system and seize control of the means of production in order to create a more equal and fair society. They believe that the state should eventually wither away as people work together to meet their collective needs.

Fascism is a totalitarian ideology that emerged in the early 20th century. Fascists believe in the creation of a centralized and authoritarian government that is led by a single leader, often referred to as the "Führer." Fascists also believe in the idea of a national community, in which the government promotes the interests of the nation as a whole above those of the individual. They often advocate for a strong military, and may seek to suppress political opposition and individual rights.

Nazism, also known as National Socialism, is a form of fascism that emerged in Germany in the early 20th century. Like other forms of fascism, Nazism is a totalitarian ideology that advocates for a centralized and authoritarian government led by a single leader. Nazis also believe in the idea of a national community and promote the interests of the nation above those of the individual. They also believe in the concept of a "master race," and promoted anti-Semitism and the persecution of minority groups.

In summary, Socialism is an economic and political system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state or community as a whole, with an emphasis on equal distribution of wealth and collective welfare. Communism is an ideology that aims to create a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the community. Fascism is a totalitarian ideology that advocates for a centralized and authoritarian government led by a single leader, often promoting the interests of the nation above those of the individual. Nazism is a form of fascism that emerged in Germany and is characterized by extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism and persecution of minority groups and belief in a "master race".

 

 

 

"AI-Generated Article: Understanding Terrorism's Economic Impact"

 This article below was created using the Artificial Intelligence system ChatGPT. I have not edited this article in any way, YET it has covered every aspect of the topic correctly.

Conclusion: Ai is no longer a futuristic concept.It is actually a part of life.

Terrorist organizations have a significant impact on the global economy and are a major concern for international authorities. These groups often engage in violent acts that disrupt economic activity and cause harm to both individuals and businesses. Additionally, the cost of anti-terrorism measures can be significant, placing a strain on government budgets and diverting resources away from other areas of need.

One of the most notable ways in which terrorist organizations impede economic growth is through the disruption of trade and commerce. Attacks on transportation infrastructure, such as airports and seaports, can make it difficult for goods to be moved around the world. This can lead to delays in the delivery of goods and services, which can slow down economic activity. Similarly, terrorist attacks on businesses can lead to closures or reduced production, which can have a negative impact on the local and national economy.

Another way in which terrorist organizations negatively impact the global economy is through the creation of fear and uncertainty. When terrorist attacks occur, people may become afraid to travel or engage in other economic activities. This can lead to a reduction in tourism and a decline in consumer spending. Additionally, businesses may become hesitant to invest in certain regions or industries if they believe that the threat of terrorism is high. This can lead to a slowdown in economic growth and job creation.

The cost of anti-terrorism measures is also a significant concern. Governments around the world spend billions of dollars each year on measures such as increased security at public places, border security, and intelligence gathering. These costs can place a strain on government budgets and divert resources away from other areas of need. Additionally, these measures can be an added burden on businesses and individuals, who may have to pay more for goods and services or face additional restrictions on their activities.

Terrorist organizations also have a significant impact on the financial markets. Attacks on major cities and financial centers can cause stock markets to plummet, leading to massive losses for investors. This can have a ripple effect throughout the global economy as investors pull out of other markets and businesses struggle to access capital. The effects of these attacks can be long-lasting, and it can take a significant amount of time for markets to recover.

In conclusion, terrorist organizations have a significant impact on the global economy. They disrupt trade and commerce, create fear and uncertainty, and divert resources away from other areas of need. The cost of anti-terrorism measures can be significant, placing a strain on government budgets and diverting resources away from other areas of need. The effects of terrorist attacks on the financial markets can be long-lasting and far-reaching. It is essential that international authorities continue to take steps to combat terrorism and protect the global economy.

 

Calm, Composed and Deadly - the New War of India!

 ‘An arrow shot by an archer may or may not kill a single person; but skillful intrigue, devised by a wise man, may kill even those who are in the womb.’ [Acharya Chanakya]

Physical wars have been an inevitable part of humanity throughout ages, from the Mahabharata war to the current conflicts across the world. The need for ‘power’ and to ‘conquer’ others through aggression, violence and bloodshed has not changed since ancient times and this has always inevitably resulted in loss of lives and assets, and compromises of values, principles and ethics.

In this modern age of technological disruptions and scientific innovations, physical (open) war has mostly been replaced by covert war carried out silently. Every type of war requires that the state must be fortified, the armed forces always prepared for war, and large sections of the population trained to defend the country and themselves during the course of war. Chanakya’s Arthashastra suggests that in order to achieve peace, policy has to be shaped prudently and through diplomacy. However, he also specifies that to excel in any war; it is appropriate to use assassination, discord, spying and false propaganda to achieve victory.

“I know that today’s era is not the era for war,” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, in September 2022. This is more than an advice from the former to the latter. It’s an insight into India’s strategy to conduct war through diplomacy by building friendly relationships with countries. Effectively, India’s political leadership is following the advice of Sun Tzu, the Chinese philosopher, military strategist and General in ancient China; “to fight wars without going into battle and to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

This is a necessity for India at the present moment. Our military hardware is inadequate for battle across two fronts. The government’s publicly available reports suggest that by 2030 the IAF may have only 30 fighter squadrons while the projected requirement is for 45 squadrons. Half of the current aircraft are expected to reach the end of their combat capability life between now and then, while the Government’s policy to boost domestic manufacturing of defense systems is currently sluggish at best. About 80% of Indian Army’s equipment and 60% of IAF equipment is of Russian origin. The Navy’s share of Russian equipment is 40% but it is dependent on European suppliers for many of the critical equipment used on ships. The Indian policy makers have to make a harder push towards indigenization of critical weapons systems to replaced the ageing ones. Fighter jets and their component systems, helicopters, battle tanks, the Navy’s submarines; should not dependent of foreign suppliers for technologies and spare parts. Our defense preparedness will remain lacking in required efficiency until 100% indigenization is achieved. This will require the mindset change from blind modernization, to achieving effective performance of available weapons systems.

Significant flaws have to be addressed in the areas of qualitative requirements and equipment procurement. Policy confusions from the past has forced and at times is still forcing our military to perform without full preparations, and the uncoordinated efforts of military modernization, sluggish indigenized technological advances and improvised tactics cannot make up for the structural deficiencies in our defense preparedness. The recent thrust on indigenous technology for military modernization will need almost a decade to show an optimal deterrent effect at the battle-field level, leaving the Indian military to defend our nation’s sovereignty with whatever resources that are available, inadequate as they might be. Defense modernization has to be combined with upgraded logistics and a military-industrial infrastructure that will increase our defense preparedness to the levels required for our optimal security needs. Till then, India is necessarily dependent on its international diplomacy skills to keep our adversaries; China and its puppet state Pakistan in a state of constant insecurity.

This will require a policy that will stop overt and covert attacks against India, its citizens, its interests, its friends and allies around the world, as well as to create an international environment inhospitable to our adversaries and their supporters. The strategy must emphasize that all instruments of national power; diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, financial, information dissemination, intelligence, and military; are to be called upon in combating international and domestic dangers. The policy should fit into the wider strategic concept of “defense-in-depth,” and should complement other elements including sub-strategies against weapons of mass destruction, cyber-attack, infrastructure protection, and narcotics control. It must focus on identifying and eliminating threats before they reach the borders of India. A strong preemptive component must be included in this policy, along-with a strong focus on reducing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and a defense-in-depth framework to secure our Nation.

India’s security policy must contain concentric perimeters of security or ‘security rings.’ The outermost will consist of intelligence organizations and diplomats operating overseas. Their primary objective should be to gather information that will preempt attacks on Indian soil. The next inner perimeter should be a mix of Customs, Immigration, Coast Guard and Border guards whose focus will be on the borders of India and the goods and persons crossing through. The next inner perimeter should be central and state police, Home Guard, and allied services that function within the borders of our Nation and are responsible for protecting our towns and cities. The innermost ring should be a public- private partnership between the private sector and government departments to play a joint role in the protection of critical infrastructures such as transport (land-sea-air), financial, communications (mobile, broadband, TV, radio) and power (electricity generation).

Diminish, Deny, Defend and Defeat should be the core principle.

Sun Tzu said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.”  

China and its loyal media channels have been advertising Chinese triumphs ranging from the launch of its first super aircraft-carrier to winning in Asia, diplomatically and economically. After it infected the world with the Covid-19 virus, most countries consider China as a major threat, with increasingly negative views about its politics and aspirations. While China and its autocratic rulers focus on a top-down planning and centralized policy making approaches for their policies; we should utilize our democratic values and our assets of diversity, agility, adaptability and ambiguity towards greater advantage in our fight against foreign influences. We must convert our goals into requirements, clearly define and communicate the outcomes, give incentives to achieve these defined outcomes, and allow private industry the freedom to innovate. China has been waging global economic warfare since 1998, and to counter this aspect we have to ensure that our economic objectives are integrated into our acquisition strategy and functionality. To quote Sun Tzu, “water naturally runs from high places and hastens downwards. Thus, in war, the way to victory is to avoid what is strong and strike at what is weak.”

In our complex bureaucratic processes, we are often focused on issues that we cannot change. Instead we should, like water, follow the path of least resistance, achieving a continuous pursuit of progress, while striving for victory. 

‘If the end could be achieved by non-military methods, even by methods of intrigue, duplicity and fraud, I would not advocate an armed conflict’. [Acharya Chanakya].

 

Israel, Palestine and India’s Balancing Act!

To listen to this article- Click here 

 The conflict between Israel and Palestine is rooted in political, cultural, religious and territorial factors. The complex issue is based on one desire from both sides, to acquiring land. And, it is not only about land, it is also about the right to self-determination. Regardless of the historical claims on the contested land by both sides, this is a modern conflict.

From 1516 to 1917, the land known as Palestine was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The inhabitants included Christians, Muslims and Jews; sharing the same land for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire, without any conflict. The dynamics of the region changed due to two factors; British colonialism and the formation of a Jewish nation.

The Ottoman Empire crumbled when the Allied powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Canada, Japan and the United States) defeated the then Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire) during the Great War (aka World War I) that was fought from July 1914 to November 1918.

In 1920, the ‘League of Nations’; headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland was formed by USA, Britain and France to provide an international forum for resolving international disputes without conflict and to ensure equitable peace in Europe. In 1922, the League formally approved the appointment of Britain to act as Palestine’s administrator. This appointment was meant to be temporary, lasting only until the League recognized Palestine as an independent nation. This goal was never achieved since the British were parallelly giving assurances to Zionist organizations about creating a Jewish state in Palestine. Zionism was an ideology specifically aimed towards this purpose, since according to the Zionists in Europe at that time, Jews constituted a nation since they did not consider themselves just a religious group but also an ethnic one that deserved their own state.

The rise of anti-Semitism (i.e.: hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people) in the late 19^th century in Russia and Eastern European countries encouraged Jewish migration to Palestine from Europe. At the same time, Jews from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Turkey also started to migrate to Palestine. Interestingly, while Zionism originated in Europe, its roots are in the belief of a historical attachment between Judaism and the lands of Palestine. The problem was that the lands where the Jews wanted to create their new state was inhabited by an Arab majority who had lived there for over a thousand years. These locals were against the Zionist goal of forming a Jewish state and instead were seeking the opportunity to create their own state or be part of a larger Arab entity. The divide between these opposing ambitions was the ‘Balfour Declaration’ of 1917 made by Britain (right in the middle of WW1); that provided for the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. This declaration did not provide Palestinian Arabs with national or political rights, prompting their disapproval of the declaration, and eventual rebellion. 

Britain was playing a double game. On one hand, it supported the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, while at the same time, assuring the Palestinian Arabs of an independent Arab state, to be established when WW1 was over. Interestingly, Britain was planning the partition of Palestine even before it had defeated the Ottoman Empire which in 1917 still ruled this territory. Under British rule, there was unrestricted Jewish migration to Palestine allowing them to purchase land and settle there, leading to increasing hostilities between the migrant Jews and the local Arabs. Britain’s feeble efforts towards reconciliation between these two adversaries was impossible because these two communities had different ideas and visions for this contested territory.

Despite various efforts by Britain from 1920s to 1948 to bring peace and reconciliation in the region, the British departed from Palestine in 1948, leaving the Jews and the Arabs to fight it out for territory. On 14 May 1948, Israel was officially declared an independent state. Four wars were fought between these adversaries, the 1967 being important since Israel occupied most of the Palestinian territory. The West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip which remained in Palestinian hands became occupied territory since it came under Israeli rule-of-law, and even today is considered as Israeli occupation.

India was one of the early supporters for formation of the Palestine State. This support was an integral part of our nation’s foreign policy in the early years of independence from British rule. India was the only major non-Arab, non-Muslim country to support the Palestinian demand for an independent state. In 1974, India recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] and the initial PLO office set-up in Delhi in 1975, which became a full-fledged embassy in 1980.  In 1988, India recognized the state of Palestine. At the United Nations in 2003, India voted against the construction of the separation wall by Israel. On 21 December 2017, India voted in favor of the UNGA [United Nations General assembly] to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

India has also built a strong relationship with Israel following the establishment of India–Israel diplomatic relationship in 1992. Today, Israel is a crucial defense technology and agricultural production technology supplier to India. People-to-people contacts are growing, and India-Israel bilateral merchandise trade grew from US$200 million in 1992 to US$7.86 billion during the financial year (FY) 2021-2022, with the balance of trade being in India’s favor.

This has changed India’s stance from being pro-Palestine to a careful balancing act, whereby there is a tilt towards an independent Indian foreign policy wherein the bi-lateral relationship with Israel is based solely on its own merits and separate from India’s relationship with Palestine. India does emphasize that there is no alternative to the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, and said the peace process can’t be put on hold amid concerns about rising tensions between the two adversaries.

India shares its land borders with the Islamic countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh and an ever-hostile China; while being dependent on the Islamic Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar for energy supplies. Since 2014, India and its charismatic Prime Minister Narendra Modi have improved and strengthened relationships with Arab countries while ensuing a nuanced effort to maintaining its positive relationship with Israel. The message from India to the world has been clear; that India supports an end to every global conflict and endorses peaceful dialogue and discussions for conflict resolution.