In this episode of the Bridging the Gap podcast, host Rachel Nelson sits down with Zara Farouk, a Middle East analyst at New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, to discuss the recent escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan, the past and present relationship between India and Israel, and the similarities of India’s and Israel’s occupations in Kashmir and the occupied Palestinian territories.
[music]Rachel: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Bridging the Gap: Conversations on Israel and Palestine, hosted by the Middle East Center at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy. On today’s episode, I have the pleasure of speaking to Zara Farouk.
Zara Farouk is a fellow Middle East analyst at the Middle Easy Center at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy. At New Lines, she focuses on South Asia-Middle East relations and foreign policy, with particular emphasis on India, China, and the broader Middle East region. Zara has a B.A. in conflict analysis and resolution, with a minor in international comparative studies from George Mason University, and an M.A. in international law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
Zara, I want to give you the opportunity to tell us– There’s been a bunch in the news about war between India and Pakistan. Tell us a little bit about what’s been going on. Why did that war escalate to the highest escalation we’ve seen in over a decade?
Zara Farouk: Hi, Rachel. Thank you so much for having me on your podcast. It’s a pretty tense time right now between India and Pakistan. There has been a serious escalation in hostilities between both nations. On April 22nd, we heard of an attack that took place in Kashmir, and this attack resulted in the death of 26 Indian tourists that were visiting Kashmir at the time, which was the deadliest attack that’s taken place since 2019.
India was pretty quick to condemn Pakistan and accuse Pakistan of orchestrating this terror attack, which Pakistan ultimately denied. Now, this has been an ongoing cycle between both countries for a very long time. They’ve fought four wars in total over Kashmir in incidents similar to what recently took place, and tensions were high. India felt the need to retaliate, and India eventually did choose to retaliate. It fired missiles towards Pakistan, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, in which Pakistan also retaliated.
They exchanged missiles and drones, which killed civilians. There was a mosque that was targeted in Pakistan, and the international community naturally was quite concerned, because both India and Pakistan are two nuclear arms-bearing countries, and the risk of both of them going to war is extremely high, given the regional implications and the kind of harm it would bring to the people.
The U.S., in this instance, decided to attempt to mediate a ceasefire, and before India and Pakistan had announced it publicly, Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire has been established, and this halted the escalation of tensions and violence that both sides were engaging in. At the moment, things have calmed down slightly, but Kashmir has been an issue since the partition of India and Pakistan, and it’s an issue that seems intractable at this point, because there seems to be no resolution. They both claim the land, and are not willing to budge on their stance.
Rachel: Yes, can you tell us a little bit more about the partition of India and Pakistan? It happened at the exact same time, almost, I think a little bit before the partition plan that the U.N. drafted for a Jewish state for Israel, and a Palestinian state. Can you tell us a little bit about the partition? How is it different than the one that happened for the U.N.? Obviously, with the U.N. partition for Palestine, that ultimately didn’t occur, but were the plans similar? Were they different? Could you go into a little bit of detail?
Zara: Yes, I think it’s a lesser-known fact that both India and Israel were, more or less, birthed around the same time. Israel was established in 1947, India in 1947, albeit under different circumstances. The establishments of both states were connected to the British in different ways. The establishment of a Jewish-only state, namely Israel, took place because the British facilitated this.
In India’s case, the partition took place, yes, it was facilitated by the British, but the reason why India needed to be divided into two separate states, one Hindu majority, one Muslim majority, was because while India was under British occupation, the British implemented a very effective strategy to create a divide between its majority Hindu and minority Muslim population. This divide and rule approach created a lot of communal violence, and the British decided that the only solution to ending the violence was to create a Hindu-majority state and a Muslim-majority state, which is modern-day India and Pakistan.
You could definitely draw similarities between the partition that took place in 1947 between India and Pakistan and the establishment of a Jewish-only state neighboring the state of Palestine. The reality is that both partitions were very messy. The British did not really account for how it would affect civilians and just the lives of people that weren’t fully for the divides of the countries. The borders were messily drawn, and in India’s case, there were families that were displaced, there was violence that took place on both sides of the border.
It’s almost seen as a traumatic event for those who lived close to the borders that lost family members or could not see them anymore because of the military divide that was created to separate both states.
Rachel: Given the similarity, as you say, of the births of these two nations, Israel and India, what has their diplomatic relationship looked like historically? Do they have good relations? We’ve seen a lot in the news that Modi praising Benjamin Netanyahu. What does that relationship look like?
Zara: Their relationship has evolved since both countries were established, and it’s actually very interesting to look into what India’s original stance was when it was established, and its posture towards Israel, versus where it stands today with Israel. When India was established and the international community was made aware that a Jewish-only state known as Israel was going to be established in the heart of the Middle East, the concept of it, Israel had the odds against it. It was a new state, a newly formed state supported by the West, supported by the British.
For India, now as a newly established democratic country that had been under occupation for several decades, India was not very welcoming of the idea of anything that had colonial undertones to it. It did not support the idea of putting Palestinians in an uncomfortable position. Similarly, it had good relations with its Arab allies. The Gulf countries in the Middle East house a lot of Indian expats. India needed to maintain its relationship with these countries in the Middle East.
The countries in the Middle East were not very happy with the establishment of a Jewish-only state, and the displacement of Palestinians after the first Nakba. It became a humanitarian crisis ultimately. For India, it was a matter of needing to stay true to its foreign policy position, the core elements in its constitution, which essentially made it shy away from the idea of engaging with Israel at all up until 1950.
In 1950, it was clear that Israel was here to stay, and India housed a minority Jewish population. At the time, in the two years after Israel was established, India did not recognize Israel, it did not engage with Israel, it did not want to form any type of relationship with Israel, although Israel had reached out to India’s leadership at the time, repeatedly asking for recognition because both countries were in the same boat. They needed international recognition. They wanted to be embraced by the international community.
In 1950, India eventually caved and it established a consulate in Tel Aviv, and Israel established a consulate in New Delhi to facilitate the travel of its Jewish population to Israel. Then there were Indian students that were interested in traveling to Israel to take courses in agriculture and technology. There was an undeniable connection between both countries that could not be denied.
India stood firm on its stance to not fully establish diplomatic relations with Israel for four decades after it had just recognized Israel. During this period of time where they had not established bilateral relations yet, there seemed to have been a tacit relationship that was formed that not many people were aware of. India started to recognize that there was a lot of utility that it could gain from being allies with Israel. It recognized that, number 1, it had security concerns with its neighboring country, Pakistan, and terror attacks, Pakistan orchestrating terror attacks in Kashmir. It had general security concerns.
India hoped that its Arab allies would provide the security assistance and diplomatic backing in exchange for India being more pro-Palestine and not engaging with Israel. It didn’t really play out that way. Israel saw that there’s a gap there, and so Israel stepped up and provided India with the vital intelligence it needed, provided India with the technology, the surveillance equipment, defense.
There was a growing relationship there between both of the countries, and it remained under the table for a long time, up until 1992, which is when they announced that they were going to establish full diplomatic relations.
Rachel: Even over the last two decades, it seems, there’s been a really marked shift in Israel-India relationship. Especially over the last five years, even, we’ve seen Modi almost have this brotherly love affair with Benjamin Netanyahu over Twitter and diplomatic meetings. Why do you think that is?
Zara: A lot has changed since the early ’90s. This shift began in 1992 after, as I said, they established diplomatic ties, but it really accelerated in the 2000s. In India, we have two of the main parties, which are the BJP that are far right, and then we have the Congress. The Congress are the left-leaning party and they’re the party that were responsible for pushing the British out and essentially the architects and the ones responsible for establishing India’s independence.
When the BJP were in power, in the early 2000s, at this point, the changing geopolitical landscape and the rise of terrorism in the region, particularly after the 9/11 attacks, led India to seek stronger counterterrorism partnerships, and Israel’s expertise in this area made it an attractive ally for India. The relationship shifted toward becoming a defense-oriented relationship. Israel became one of India’s top defense suppliers of drones, missile systems, surveillance tech, you name it.
In 2003, for example, India’s national security advisor described an ideological alliance between the Likud, BJP, and the U.S. Republican Party as a tripartite axis, essentially emphasizing the fact that all three countries had a similar enemy, a shared fight against Islamic jihadist terrorism, and that all three states were democracies facing similar security threats.
In present day, we have the BJP that is back in power. Modi has been Prime Minister of India since 2014, and he’s echoed similar sentiments, reaffirming India’s unshakeable resolve to fight terrorism following the attack that occurred most recently in April. Again, we see, when it comes to the U.S.’s role in this tripartite axis, President Donald Trump also posted a statement showing solidarity with India, saying the U.S. stands with India against terrorism.
It’s just this shift has taken place largely because there has been an ideological convergence between India and Israel, because they’ve recognized that they’re both fighting a similar fight against a threat, and there seems to be a shared empathy there between both countries. Since Narendra Modi and the BJP came to power, it’s not just a strategic relationship at this point.
Modi was the first prime minister to visit Israel ever, and that has never happened, and there was no visit to Palestine or mention of support for a two-state solution from India. These shared values have provided a foundation for their relationship, and the leadership of Modi has also influenced the shift largely. His foreign policy has been characterized by a more assertive approach which seeks to enhance India’s global position, and strengthening its ties with Israel is definitely a part of this broader strategy.
Rachel: There is a religious element, right? We’ve seen Zionism in Israel be lauded by the BJP in India. Can you explain this? It’s like right-wing Hindu, that religious nationalism We’ve obviously seen it, in Israel, with Zionism, which, for our listeners, we’ve explained Christian Zionism before. Zionism is, to some, the belief that Jews have a claim for a Jewish homeland in the ancestral homeland of Israel.
Of course, that, to others, has evolved to political kinds of Zionism, to now we see an even messianic form of Zionism taking hold of the religious right party in Israel to where there is no two-state solution anymore. It’s a Jewish-only land. How has this evolved in India with India’s form of religious nationalism?
Zara: Since Modi came to power, his party is extreme far-right. The ideology that they have adopted and implemented as the ruling party in India is known as Hindutva. There have been a lot of comparisons of Hindutva to Zionism because they are both ethno-nationalist political ideologies that fundamentally are trying to establish a relationship between the country and the predominant religion.
In India’s case, it’s a Hindu-majority country. This ideology essentially believes, or the people who follow it believe, that India is the homeland of the Hindu race, and that true Indians are those who see India as both their fatherland and a holy land. This is a really problematic sentiment because, India is a huge country and it’s known for its diversity, its religious diversity, all the minorities it houses, and that includes Muslims and Christians and Sikhs and Christians.
This narrative that has been promoted through the Hindutva ideology has awakened a beast in India because there has been a large shift in the media narratives, in propaganda that essentially is trying to convince people, trying to convince Hindus that it is their land, and anyone that is not of the same religion does not belong in the land. It’s more than just being pro-Hindu. Hindutva is about reshaping India’s secular identity towards a sectarian identity and establishing that it’s a Hindu-first state.
This has involved rewriting textbooks in schools in certain states, altering certain historical narratives to center a Hindutva narrative, pushing laws that favor Hindu customs, and marginalizing minorities, especially Muslims. One example of this is the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Act, which is otherwise known as the Love Jihad law. This law was implemented under Modi in 2021. In certain states where it was enforced, it made it illegal for a Muslim man to marry a Hindu woman if it involved religious conversion to Islam.
The way that this law was framed targeted Indian Muslim men as almost attempting to lure Hindu women into converting into Hinduism and joining the jihadist movement. Framing Muslims as a security threat has effectively created a sense of fear amongst a ton of Indian Hindus that are now conditioned to believe these things. This legislation represented an attempt by the BJP to gender Islamophobia using state-sanctioned law.
It’s polarized Indian society, and it’s very upsetting to see how India has shifted away from its commitment to democracy, its commitment to embracing religious pluralism and all these things it fought so hard to be, after it gained independence, be diminished while under the existing government. At the moment, the secular pluralistic ideal has been contested. You see authoritarianism, media clampdowns and censorship, internet shutdowns. I understand why there are these comparisons being made between Hindutva and Zionism, because of the ideological parallels that are being promoted.
Rachel: How has Hindutva affected India’s broader diplomatic relationship with its Middle Eastern partners? You mentioned that India has had a longstanding relationship with many of the GCC states. Obviously, these GCC states are Muslim countries. How has this ideology affected those relationships?
Zara: India has a very deliberate and, so far, successful foreign policy strategy. It’s referred to as its balancing act. It’s managed to maintain its relationship with its Arab allies while building a strong relationship with Israel, and it’s successfully done so by remaining neutral on certain issues. If you visit the Indian Embassy’s website, it still publicly states that it supports a two-state solution, and they still send aid to Palestine on an annual basis.
There are still things that India does that perhaps they’re not as vocal about in showing support for their Arab allies and for the Palestinian cause, but not to the point where they’re willing to sever ties with Israel over it. I think India has managed to maintain a good relationship with the Middle East and Israel because of this balanced foreign policy position.
Rachel: Coming back to Kashmir, the source of the recent tension between India and Pakistan, India’s been criticized for a long time that it is occupying Kashmir, which it categorically denies. It says that it is not occupying Kashmir. What is Kashmir, and then why is it, in particular, so contested? Then, on another note, Israel has been widely criticized for its occupation of Palestinian territories, the West Bank, Gaza, including its occupation of Syrian territory in the Golan Heights.
Why do you think that Israel has received so much negative attention for its occupation when this other longstanding occupation, which is much longer than Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, if we’re strictly speaking about Israel’s 1967 borders, why do you think that India hasn’t gotten this level of international attention?
Zara: I’ll start with your first question on what Kashmir is and why it’s so widely contested. Kashmir was once known as a princely state. Prior to the partition of India and Pakistan, it was ruled by a Hindu maharaja who worked for the British Empire. After the withdrawal of the British, it was ultimately up to the Hindu maharaja to decide whether he wanted to unionize Kashmir with Pakistan or India.
Now, Kashmir is complicated because, demographically, it is a Muslim-majority state, has a Hindu-minority population. It was ruled by a Hindu, and its people, more than likely—we don’t have an answer to this because a plebiscite was never issued—would more than likely want to remain sovereign and neither belong to India or Pakistan. At the time, the maharaja decided to, in the interest of security and fear of any incoming Pakistani terror attacks, because that was an issue that he feared and the people of Kashmir feared, he made a deal with India. That was essentially to become a semiautonomous state.
This would be constitutionally protected and embedded in India’s Constitution that Kashmir is its own land. It’s governed by its own leadership, has its own constitution. This remained in India’s Constitution up until 2019, when Modi decided to revoke Articles 35(A) and 370, which gave it its autonomous status. As soon as those constitutional protections were revoked, Kashmir automatically became a part of Indian territory, and the people were given really no say in this taking place.
That’s currently where we stand with Kashmir today. Now, why is it a contested region? Why have Pakistan and India nearly fought almost five wars over this region? Firstly, Kashmir borders India, Pakistan, and China. It is a resource-rich area. It houses the Indus River, which provides Pakistan water for its agricultural sector, and also India, but Pakistan is more reliant on this water source.
After the events took place in April, most recently India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty that was ratified in 1960, and India suspending this put Pakistan in a very uncomfortable position. Another thing about Kashmir is its landscape and its mountainous terrain makes it an ideal spot for military vantage point. It’s a highly attractive geopolitical region for all three countries.
Now, India claims the whole of Kashmir, Pakistan claims the whole of Kashmir as well, except for the small slivers that belong to China. India does not recognize Pakistan or China’s claim to the region at all. From the perspective of Hindutva, Kashmir is not just a territory but it’s a symbol of India’s national unity and strength. Now, for the international community, it’s a case to be watched, and it’s a conflict to be wary of because it’s a flashpoint between three nuclear powers, namely India, China, and Pakistan.
India’s relationship with Israel and its embrace of Hindutva, and the situation in Kashmir, are all deeply interconnected. I think the fact that both conflicts, at the moment, today, have escalated around a similar time and we’re seeing innocent civilians being murdered in both occupied Palestinian territory and in Kashmir, we’re seeing their rights being stripped, we’re seeing India control electricity and water supply which is akin to what’s going on in Israel-Palestine at the moment.
I think that, to your question about why Kashmir has gained less international attention compared to Israel-Palestine, I think this has been a very deliberate choice by India to not involve the international community, to not accept mediation from the United States, from any of the Western powers because it insists it’s a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan.
While India stands by this, Pakistan does not agree, and has made several attempts to take the human rights atrocities and accuse India of occupying Kashmir to the international community, to its allies, to the United Nations. While there has been condemnation of how India has essentially militarized the zone—it’s one of the most militarized regions in the world today, there are about 500,000 military personnel that are currently in Kashmir at the moment—it didn’t gain the same coverage because India didn’t want it.
Rachel: Speaking of militarization, that has been a key feature of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, specifically the West Bank. Israel has erected over 900 military checkpoints that Palestinians have to go through to get between Palestinian cities and villages.
There are thousands of IDF soldiers present in the West Bank at all times, most of them there—I think 80% is the figure—only there to protect settlements, which speaking on settlements, there are over 140 legal settlements, not to count the over 100 illegal, by Israeli standards, outposts present in the West Bank, that are Israeli civilian, Jewish-only settlements, which has been condemned by the international community for its illegality according to the Fourth Geneva Conventions. What has the occupation of Kashmir looked like?
Zara: Quite similar to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, to be honest, Kashmir, at the moment, as I mentioned earlier, is one of the most militarized zones in the world with roughly one soldier for every eight to 10 civilians just to give you a sense of how deeply militarized daily life is in that region. The military presence shapes daily life in Kashmir for its locals.
This involves checkpoints, surveillance, curfews. There’s been internet blackouts, media censorship, the imprisonment of journalists are still in prison today. What’s interesting is that there is a strong sense of solidarity between Kashmiris for the Palestinian plight and Palestinian support for what Kashmiris are going through because these are two people that are essentially getting caught in the crossfire between two major countries that are warring and not taking into consideration how this is resulting in the loss of innocent life and just harsh, cruel daily realities for the people that have nothing to do with the conflict at the end of the day.
In Kashmir, people often go days without access to any internet, schools and shops can be shut down without notice, and there’s a deep sense of fear and uncertainty woven into their daily lives. Another issue that has been reported to human rights organizations and has popped up on the radar of people concerned with what India is doing in Kashmir, is the assault of Kashmiri women and crimes committed by Indian soldiers against the Kashmiri women.
There’ve been multiple documented cases of sexual violence which are rarely investigated. The presence of armed forces in this area has created an atmosphere of intimidation and vulnerability for its people. They have no rights anymore since the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35(A). It’s a very sad situation, and we don’t hear much about it because they don’t have access to the internet, and their voices have been silenced deliberately. It’s a very sad situation, and it most certainly is an occupation.
Rachel: We touched on this a few times, but obviously, the overwhelming majority of countries, at least for now, support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along Israel’s 1967 borders, so the unification of the West Bank and Gaza as a Palestinian state. We haven’t heard a lot about what solutions have been proposed for this particular occupation, this particular, really hot conflict.
Can you tell us what kinds of solutions have been proposed? I know that India probably has a very different solution than Pakistan, and Kashmiris themselves probably have their own solution. Has there also been any international solutions proposed to resolve this conflict?
Zara: Yes. After the partition, the first diplomatic attempt at a resolution to the ongoing violence in Kashmir and between India and Pakistan was in 1948, where the U.N. proposed a plebiscite or a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir, to let the people, the Kashmiri natives, decide who they wanted to join between India and Pakistan. India, at the time, did not want to implement the vote because if perhaps a plebiscite was held and the people decided they did not want to join India, then that would put India in a position where it had no claim to the region, essentially.
The plebiscite was never implemented. There have been attempts by the U.S., by the international community, to try and mediate and to try and come to some form of a solution to prevent loss of innocent civilian lives. Ultimately, India does not want that. While Pakistan has attempted to bring this to light and to bring the atrocities to light and the injustices committed by India from their perspective in Indian-occupied Kashmir, as they call it, nothing has really come out of it because of an insistence, on India’s part, that this is no one’s business but theirs and Pakistan’s.
Rachel: To wrap up a little bit, I’m wondering where you see the future of India-Israel relations going, and what are some outcomes that we can expect both within India and related to India’s foreign policy on the issue of Israel-Palestine?
Zara: On the diplomatic front, I think India will continue its balancing act foreign policy position. It sees Israel as a key ally in the Middle East at this point, but it won’t abandon its ties with its Arab nations. We’re all so close to considering normalizing with Israel. What began, once upon a time, as a very tacit defense partnership, is now blossomed into a full-spectrum relationship that’s built on trade, on tech, agriculture, counterterrorism, and it’s clear now that India and Israel are allies.
Domestically, closer ties with Israel may also influence internal political discourse. The BJP government has often drawn ideological parallels with Zionism, especially around nationalism and security. In the last decade or so, there has been a much stronger convergence between both countries because of the ideological similarities between Hindutva and Zionism.
India has largely taken a lot of inspiration in how Israel has approached building a Jewish state and its approach to state-building and gaining international recognition. The way India today is framing its counterterrorism policies and internal security measures, one could say that it has drawn some inspiration from Israel. I think, in the long term, the partnership between Israel and India may evolve into a model of 21st century diplomacy that isn’t bound by geographic proximity, but by shared values, which we’re clearly seeing at the moment. Ultimately, I think India will continue peddling its relationship with its Arab allies and building on its very strong relationship with Israel.
Rachel: Zara, thank you so much for coming and sharing all of this with us. You did just have a piece come out with New Lines titled: India, Israel, and the Politics of Control. Can you say a few words about the piece?
Zara: Yes. In my latest publication, it’s a comparative piece, a comparative analysis where I draw a connection between the system implemented in India, in Kashmir specifically, and Israel in occupied Palestinian territory. I essentially outline the bilateral relationship between India and Israel, how it’s evolved since India recognized Israel, how their relationship slowly formed, and where and how it’s evolved, and where it stands today.
I wrote this because I think it’s crucial to understand these conflicts, not just in isolation, but as a part of a broader global pattern of settler colonialism, and the marginalization of minorities. I think it’s critical to recognize how sometimes occupation can be normalized. I wrote this piece to bring to attention what’s going on in both regions, and to draw parallels just to highlight what’s going on.
By putting these cases in conversation, my goal is to push readers, especially policymakers and analysts, to think critically about how occupation can be normalized, and how international silence can oftentimes lead to escalations and encourage these conflicts to persist when we’re trying to find a solution. I encourage everyone to read it, and thank you so much for having me on your podcast, Rachel.
Rachel: Yes, thanks so much for coming in.
Thank you all for listening today. If you liked this episode, remember to subscribe to New Lines on Soundcloud, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Visit www.newlinesinstitute.org if you’d like to hear more from our experts on all sorts of topics in global affairs. We’ll see you in the next episode.
[music]The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not an official policy or position of New Lines Institute.
