Despite significant differences, India and Israel have forged a close relationship over the decades, driven partly by their colonial legacies and their contentious handling of minority issues. Both nations, while promoting themselves as democracies, have faced criticism for their treatment of minorities and adherence to international commitments.

Israel
The State of Israel has an uncodified constitution. Instead of a formal written document, and following the Harari Decision of June 13, 1950, adopted by the Israeli Constituent Assembly (the First Knesset), Israel has enacted several Basic Laws that address government arrangements and human rights. The Basic Law dealing with 'Human Dignity and Liberty' declares that fundamental human rights in Israel are based on the "recognition of the value of man, the sanctity of his life, and the fact that he is free." Human freedom includes the right to leave and enter the country, privacy (encompassing speech, writings, and notes), intimacy, and protection from unlawful searches of one's person or property. Any violation of this right must be "by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required." This law also includes provisions regarding its permanence and protection from changes through emergency regulations. Like all democracies, this part of the constitution does not mention religion and thus includes minorities.

There is regular international outcry, including by the European Union, against Israeli policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

From the inception of its 'creation,' not a day passes that Israel does not trumpet that it is the 'only democracy' in the Middle East and that it has 'adapted and highlighted its commitment to liberal democracy.' The facts are contrary. Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, mirrored the UN's democratic stipulations. It included multiple commitments for the creation of liberal democracy and stated that the future state "will be based on freedom, justice, and peace, and it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture. Israel is home to a large Israeli Arab-Palestinian minority, which now comprises 21 percent of its citizenry. The country's history of internal and external conflict with the local Palestinian population and with the greater Arab world, as well as its self-identification as a Jewish state, has led to an uneasy relationship between the Jewish-Israeli majority and Arab-Israeli-Palestinian minority. Between 1948 and 1966, large portions of Israel's Arab-Palestinian citizenry were kept under military rule within Israel's territorial boundaries. Israel maintained control of the territory, leading in some sectors to a re-reading of Israel's history, suggesting that its democracy has been flawed for a far longer time. 
Seen from the above perspective, Israel is no longer a democracy, as a substantial portion of the population under its control has limited political rights, while others (Palestinian citizens of Israel) enjoy some rights but are still discriminated against. There is regular international outcry, including by the European Union (EU), against Israeli policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Outbreaks of violence draw routine condemnation by the EU of Israel and armed Palestinian groups and emphasize the centrality of human rights as a core element of EU declarations. The EU is critical of how Israel’s settlement policy undermines peace and continues to emphasize its commitment to the two-state formula. While the U.S. is in the throes of the Presidential Elections and the Biden Administration weighs on the pros and cons of ending the conflict in Gaza, the Palestinians have been left to mourn the killing of more than 40,000 of their Palestinian brethren, including over 16,460 children, the flattening of 80 percent of Gaza, and the destruction of its infrastructure including schools, universities, hospitals, roads, and civic services. For the Palestinians, who lost their lives, peace is a little too late, and those who have been pushed to the wall have little or no place to save their lives, as neighboring Arab countries are also experiencing the pros and cons of allowing the refugees to enter their countries. Even the news of some Western countries having recognized the Palestinian state does not raise the morale of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, for whom survival is most important and for which the priority is for sanity to prevail within the Israeli leadership, leading to the conflict to end. Globally, the unanimity is that the U.S., the main supporter of Israel, must use the maximum influence to end the war, which means political pressure and an end to military assistance. The latest U.S. Peace Plan to end the conflict in Gaza (President's Plan) indicates that Israel accepted its proposal, but Israel has not publicly said this. It has continued assaults in central and southern Gaza, among the bloodiest of the war. It has repeatedly said it would not commit to an end of its campaign in Gaza before Hamas is eliminated.

While the U.S. is in the throes of the Presidential Elections and the Biden Administration weighs on the pros and cons of ending the conflict in Gaza, the Palestinians have been left to mourn the killing of more than 40,000 of their Palestinian brethren, including over   16,460 children, the flattening of 80 percent of Gaza, and the destruction of its infrastructure including schools, universities, hospitals, roads, and civic services.

Geopolitical Location: Relationship of Conflict with Neighbors
States do not choose their neighbors, as the 'tyranny of geography' dictates this fact. Each state then considers this element and formulates its foreign policy to suit its needs. Foreign policy is thoroughly discussed at various forums, especially within the leadership of the government in power and the parliament. It is always practical that the input from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is given the importance it deserves. One of the most important aspects of any country's foreign policy is the significance of coexistence, irrespective of a country's neighbors. Other aspects of foreign policy govern the relationship with countries that are further away from geopolitical locations. Naturally, the opinion of the domestic audience is also considered when formulating foreign policy. However, the people of each country are to be guided by the leadership that normal relationships must be maintained with each neighboring country so that there is internal and external peace, which then encourages economic progress and foreign investment. In both these aspects, India and Israel have visibly progressed, but regretfully, at a cost. These countries do not have a very enviable record of the best coexistence practices with their neighbors; wars have been fought, and conflicts have occasionally occurred. India and Israel, even though geopolitically apart, have relatively recently discovered an affinity in their outlook on regional disputes and a common strategic agenda. Sumaira Kausar, the researcher, clubs these two countries 'Indians and Israelis as they display extremely high levels of threat perception, and they feel stressed in their region. Both states waged several major conventional wars against their neighbors.' She further elaborates, 'This common factor has also brought these two countries to establish political, economic, and military ties. According to Kausar, 'apart from Russia, Israel has emerged as a leading source of critical military technology and hardware for India. It is one of India's best-kept secrets that Israel helped it with intelligence and equipment in all its wars since 1962'. Both India and Israel have less-than-normal relationships with their neighbors. 
India
Instead of its foreign policy pushing policies that embody respect for the sovereignty of its neighbors and practicing coexistence, history records that India has been embroiled in either conflict or browbeating its neighbors in the past seven decades. It seems India aims to establish hegemony in its neighborhood and desires to conduct relations with them on its terms. India is breathing down the neck of Nepal and Sri Lanka, and they hardly have elbow room to maneuver their foreign policy in furthering their national interest. While India's foreign policy record towards her neighbors since independence, generally, was unquestionably interventionist, sticking to its double standards, it remained strongly opposed to the interference of other major powers in the region. Having decided right at the outset of its independence, India did not make the desired efforts to come to an understanding of demarcating its border with China. As a result, India and China went to wars and conflicts, a serious one in 1962. It is ironic that more or less at the time India was dilly-dallying the demarcation of its borders with China during 1962, Pakistan had completed its negotiations with China to demarcate its border and signed the border agreement on April 1963. It resulted in a relationship based on trust between the two countries, while a relationship of mistrust was laid between India and China, which continues till the present.  
Neville Maxwell, the author of the famous book "India's China War" and an authority on the reasons that led to 1962 India's war with China, 'blames India for its rigidity in negotiating the border between the two countries.' He strongly believes that 'as far as McMahon Line was concerned India, the 'People's Republic of China (PRC) Government was prepared to accept the border alignment but insisted let it be renegotiated, put through the usual diplomatic process, to wipe out its imperialist origins.' Nehru refused and that was his 'Himalayan blunder.’ So, Indian policy created a border dispute and ruled out the only way it could peacefully be settled was through diplomatic negotiations. The relationship between the Asian neighbors has soured over the last decade, particularly following a 2020 border brawl between Indian and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley (Ladakh). Dr. Andrew Scobell, a known eye on China-India relations, opines, 'China considers India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, intent on stirring up trouble along their common Himalayan border and collaborating with other powers to contain China's rise and counter China's growing presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).' Relations between India and China will likely remain troubled or worse. Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan states, 'There is very little likelihood that there will be any resolution to the border conflict or the current tensions between the two countries, and as long as forces are massed at the border, the risk of escalation remains.'

For India, Muslims shall not be allowed to rule the country; as history recorded from the late 12^th century onwards, Muslim empires dominated the subcontinent, most notably the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire, ruled a country with a large Hindu majority, and for Israel, the atrocities, the Jews had endured in many states shall not be allowed to be repeated.

India's record of relations with Pakistan is no better. India went to war with Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region in 1947, followed by the two wars in 1965 and 1971. 2019 heightened the concerns of the regional countries and major powers when India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeatedly cited the Pulwama attack to mobilize voters in the 2019 general elections, in which he returned to power with a larger majority in parliament. February 27, 2019, will haunt the Indian government for years to come. What was envisioned as an election-winning stunt turned into a major disaster. In February 2019, a suicide attack was carried out on a convoy of Indian Armed Forces in which 44 soldiers lost their lives. The Modi regime held Pakistan responsible for this attack without any concrete proof and devised a strategy to enthrall his Hindu hardliners, who have an avid appetite for aggressive postures against the latter. On the night of February 26, 2019, Indian jets penetrated a few kilometers into Pakistani territory, which was later followed by false claims that they had bombed terrorist compounds and killed 300 terrorists. These strikes clearly violated Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. On the morning of February 27, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) demonstrated professionalism and competence when it targeted locations across the Line of Control (LOC), making sure that no substantial damage was done. Moreover, during the aerial engagement that took place between the Indian and Pakistani aircraft, the PAF was able to take down an Indian MiG-21 and Su-30.
India's rigidity in its relations with most neighbors borders on arrogance. Reuters, reporting on June 11, 2024, quoted Jaishankar, the Foreign Minister of India, that his country's ties with China will focus on finding solutions to the border issues with China that have long strained ties between the neighboring countries. Reuters also quoted Jaishankar, 'But relations and problems with China and Pakistan were different, "With Pakistan, we would want to find a solution to the issue of years-old cross-border terrorism.” That cannot be the policy of a good neighbor, and the 'Indian Foreign Minister's double talk on the current relationship office country with China and Pakistan; instead of blaming China and Pakistan, India should investigate its blunders committed during various phases of its relations with Pakistan and China.' During the '60s, India vacillated in coming to a satisfactory solution to the border demarcation with China and had to face a self-imposed war with its northern neighbor. With Pakistan, the allegation of terrorism is not based on facts, as there are hardly any reports of terrorism in India. At the same time, Pakistan has definitive proof of terrorism being committed on its soil almost every day, as well as evidence of India's backing of these terrorists. Daily Dawn is known for its objective reporting. In its editorial of June 12, 2024, it stated, "The recent disclosure that Indian intelligence was running a network of assassins within Pakistan" is one example of this. 
Israel
The similarities of India with Israel in this context reflect the same. Israel went into a war right at the outset of its controversial creation in 1948 and carried on this conflict with its neighbors in 1967 and 1973. Smaller conflicts have continued unabated. The present one is in the Gaza Strip, and attacks on Syrian territory are a regular theme of Israel's arrogant and aggressive foreign policy. When Palestine was divided by the UN to create the State of Israel, the region of Jordan received more than a million Palestinian refugees from the West Bank and Israel. Refugees make up a large portion of the more than six million people who live in Jordan today; about a half million refugees from the U.S. war in Iraq are included in that total. The basis for the ill-treatment of the Palestinians and other Arabs under the control of the Israelis can be traced to the 1948 UN Resolution that created the state of Israel. The neighboring Arab countries naturally supported their Arab brethren who fled Palestine after its occupation by the Israelis. C. H. Dodd and Mary Sales, two well-known British professors of history, are strongly of the opinion that at the end of the 1948 War, 'the Arabs lost to the Israeli aggressors' parts of Palestine allocated to them in the UN Partition Plan.' Regretfully, most of the Arab states were resolute, proclaiming their intention to one day terminate the existence of a state they would neither accept nor recognize, which has become the victim of regional realities.
Dahlia Scheindlin, a fellow at Century International based in Israel, a public opinion expert, and an international political and strategic analyst, is concerned with 'Israel witnessing significant undermining of the norms and institutions of liberal democracy over the last decade. The emerging political culture has removed checks on majority rule, constricted space for political dissent or protection, anchored ethno-national primacy for Jews in law, and propagated an illiberal understanding of democracy.' As Israel's Western supporters caution her in official media releases not to encroach on disputed territory, it had little effect on the Israeli Government. The result is that these specific changes create the foundations for permanent annexation of large portions of the West Bank, which ensures the continued political subjugation of Palestinian populations, regardless of their citizenship status, in more permanent ways. During the most recent elections, proponents of annexation made their goals more explicit than they have in the past. Assessments of Israel's political culture should extend beyond the Green Line. Since Israel's policies impact people in the occupied territories, they should not be viewed solely as an "internal matter." Policymakers in the U.S. and internationally should respond to Israel's actions in ways that consider Israel's total population, including all people under direct Israeli control, regardless of whether they have legal citizenship or live in occupied territories. In brief, as a researcher, Sumera Kauser has put it, 'Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and even the State's right to exist have been a subject of dispute amongst his Arab neighbors.' However, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and established diplomatic relations with some Gulf countries; it finds itself relatively secure, even though the process of midwifery, as reported in the media, was done by the United States, its most trusted ally. Regretfully, the efforts by Israel to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians seem as remote as it was many decades back, and the sufferings of the Palestinians continue unabated. It would not be an exaggeration to state that both countries share similarities in terms of being a threat to regional peace and stability.
Never Again: Distorting History 
'Historical negations, also called historical denialism, falsify or distort the historical record. In attempting to revise the past, historical negations act as illegitimate historical revisionism by using techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse'. After the colonizers had 'faded away' and India and Israel had emerged as independent states, the elite, comprising mostly leaders from various segments of the society for devious motives, 'invented' a real dilemma for political purposes: how to reconcile the present with the past, which shall 'resonate with the 'targeted' audience. In the context of the past, India and Israel share commonalities of their leadership who have drummed in the minds of the people, both ideologically and politically, the slogan, ‘Never Again’; the past shall never be repeated. For India, Muslims shall not be allowed to rule the country; as history recorded from the late 12th century onwards, Muslim empires dominated the subcontinent, most notably the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire, ruled a country with a large Hindu majority, and for Israel, the atrocities, the Jews had endured in many states shall not be allowed to be repeated. The Jews also cite the 'Never Again' slogan to the 'historical awareness; Europe for having engendered the crime; the U.S. for having closed its doors to Jewish immigration; and then for having watched the genocide unfold without acting. What happened must not be repeated.'
No part of the globe has escaped the invaders, be it Europe, Asia, the now U.S., Latin America, or the countries we call 'the down under.' Historians do not condone the colonization or the invasion of these parts of the globe. Still, the fact remains that significant parts of the globe now have inhabitants who can trace their lineage to the so-called invaders. It's also a fact that the successors of those who left their land are now living peacefully and contributing to the progress of the states that they now call their home. The debate around the globe does carry on the pros and cons of these invasions and colonization, but the leaders would rarely incite their public to go on a carnage or pick a certain race to commit atrocities. 
India
Since the BJP came to power in India, minorities have been targeted, giving them the impression that they are not equal citizens of the state. It is the Muslims, in particular, who are the target of the BJP leaders, who called them infiltrators. In the book, Rising Hindutva and its Impact on the Region, S. M. Hali quotes Golwalkar, a leading Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader,' from whom the BJP government derives all its ideological strength, 'offering the non-Hindus living in India a grim choice, either to merge themselves in the national race that is Hinduism, all adopt its culture, or live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the natural race.'
If one looks deep into the minds of the bigoted BJP leaders, led by the Prime Minister of India, one could easily understand they are referring to the Muslim rulers who crossed over to India either from Afghanistan or from Central Asia; efforts continue to twist the past. Like all invasions, there were killings on both sides, but once these rulers made India their home, they also contributed to the progress of this country, and by and large, their policies were not biased in favor of the Muslims. 
Herman Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, German historians, credit the Sultans of Delhi and the Mughal rulers who staked their fate on India. Although these new rulers of India did identify with the country they had conquered, their faith remained distinctly alien, with no fault of their own, and this led to conflict and tension hitherto unknown. He considers these rulers to have enriched Indian culture by encountering Islam, which opened new connections with West Asia and compared it to Buddhism, which had linked India with East Asia. Other historians are divided on the impact of the Muslim rulers; some highlighted the destructive role of these rulers on the flourishing Hindu kingdoms, while others, which include Historian Anastasia Nikitin, have drawn attention to their admirable contribution of blending Indian and Persian culture in art and architecture and praises Bijapur as the most magnificent city in India. Emperor Akbar gradually enlarged the Mughal Empire to include many of the subcontinent. Under Akbar, who stressed the importance of religious tolerance and winning over the goodwill of the subjects, a multicultural empire came into being, with various non-Muslim subjects actively integrated into the Mughal Empire's bureaucracy and military machinery.
Fariha Kanwal and Fatima Ali, researchers on the history of India, give due credit to Muslim rulers of India, particularly the Mughals, 'They selected non-Muslims on merit. They celebrated their festivals as well. Their period of rule was progressive and prosperous, and one of the main objectives was to adopt the behavior of religious tolerance.' So, religious intolerance is the main factor to create chaos in society. Wherever it did not show from the extremists, we can see peace and harmony prevailing in the society. Fariha Kanwal and Fatima Ali add, 'Mughal Emperors did not show any such kind of religious intolerance that we are facing nowadays. The services opened for all Indians without any discrimination.' History also records that the people could get services in the Mughal Empire based on their talent, and they had the freedom to express their feelings and ideas. They were independent and able to utilize their abilities.
BJP leadership has taken the lead in distorting history and has provoked the majority Hindu population to physically attack the Muslims and thus damage the delicate religious harmony. During the period leading to the recently concluded general elections in India, nothing has deterred Modi from using inflammatory, Islamophobic language to demonize Muslims. He has even said his target of winning 400 seats is to prevent Congress from reviving Article 370 and putting the "Babri lock" on the Ram Temple. Declaring "India is at a crucial juncture in history," he has said the choice is between 'vote jihad' or 'Ram Rajya.' While throwing dirt on the Muslims of their country, not a day goes by when Indian media and tourist houses take pride in their rich cultural heritage, most of it they owe to the Muslim rulers; the Mughal emperors were among India's greatest patrons of art, responsible for some of the country's most spectacular monuments, like the palaces at Delhi, Agra, and Lahore (in present-day Pakistan) and the famous mausoleum, the Taj Mahal. Not to mention that Muslim rulers established their authority in the political field, but the Hindus mostly worked in trade and commerce, largely because the Muslims were less conversant. The Mughal Empire's fiscal and trade policies stimulated the economy and contributed to economic growth.
Sahibzada Riaz Noor, an authority on South Asian Culture, especially about ancient India, invites attention to the Mughal history of Hindustan, particularly of its several dimensions: 'It was one of the richest and most glorious kingdoms, spanning no less than 200-250 years in its heyday, matching, shoulder to shoulder, in wealth, art, learning, architecture, statecraft and governance with previous rich cultures and civilizations such as the Greco-Roman empire, the Persian empire, the Abbasid and the Ottoman realms.'  Comparing Mughal culture with that of the English colonizers, he lauds the British for a parliamentary, legal, civil system of governance, whose cornerstones are the rule of law, human freedom, and equality before the law, but considers the contributions of the Mughal culture and civilization 'much more lasting and elemental, recasting deeper aspects of social life, in terms of food, couture, music, dance, painting, poetry, prose, epistolary, art, architecture, and social mannerisms.' 
(To be continued…)

The writer holds a Master’s degree in Political Science from Punjab University and a Master’s degree in Diplomatic Studies from the UK. He has served in various capacities at Pakistan's missions abroad, including as Ambassador to Vietnam and High Commissioner to Malaysia. Currently, he is a visiting faculty member at four mainstream public universities in Islamabad and serves as an Adviser to the India Centre at the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. 
E-mail: [email protected]