Last evening (Thursday) incident in Hyderabad, where some individuals waved Palestine flags during a Milad un Nabi rally, has sparked a significant debate. It comes at a time when discussions around Hyderabad’s historical integration into India post-independence have already raised tensions, especially regarding whether it should be termed “liberation” or “integration.” This event, coupled with AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi’s controversial “Jai Palestine” slogan in the Indian Parliament, has led to renewed focus on India’s evolving stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict and what it signifies for the country’s internal and foreign policies. Historically, India has had a sympathetic stance toward Palestine, particularly during the Congress era. Indira Gandhi’s government strongly supported the Palestinian cause, condemning Israel’s occupation of territories like the Gaza Strip. This allegiance was shaped by both India’s post-colonial foreign policy and its domestic political considerations, particularly the Congress Party’s close alignment with pro-Muslim sentiments. The geopolitical landscape, however, has shifted dramatically since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014 under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The current government has adopted a more neutral stance, seeking to maintain a balanced relationship between Israel and Palestine. Yet, Modi’s government has visibly deepened ties with Israel, particularly in areas such as defense, technology, and space exploration. The Congress’s longstanding support for Palestine and its criticism of Israel fits within its broader narrative of Muslim appeasement, which many believe the party has pursued for decades to secure its vote base. Critics argue that this strategy has alienated India’s majority Hindu population, creating a deep political divide. The BJP, on the other hand, has strategically repositioned India’s foreign policy to align more closely with its national interests, reducing emotional and ideological leanings in international relations. Israel, despite being a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors, has been remarkably successful in defending its interests, particularly with the backing of the United States. Modi’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his subsequent visit to Israel signaled a stark departure from previous Indian governments, which had hesitated to engage so openly with Israel. This new friendship has benefited India, especially in defense and technology sectors. The Indian government under Modi has emphasized that its foreign policy decisions are driven by pragmatism, prioritizing India’s interests rather than historical alliances or emotional ties.
This approach, however, has drawn criticism from the Congress and other opposition parties. Congress, which continues to carry the mantle of being “pro-Islamic,” views Modi’s foreign policy as a betrayal of India’s traditional support for Palestine. The party’s opposition stems not just from geopolitical considerations but also from its attempts to retain a political identity that appeals to its traditional Muslim voter base. The waving of Palestine flags in Hyderabad must be understood in this broader political context. The rally itself, commemorating the birth of Prophet Mohammed, was inherently religious, but the introduction of Palestine flags transformed it into a political spectacle. For many, it was an overt display of support for Owaisi’s stance on Palestine, while for others, it symbolized something more insidious: an assertion of a particular identity that goes against the grain of India’s evolving national ethos under the BJP government. Owaisi, a qualified barrister and a vocal advocate for constitutional values, has often positioned himself as a champion of minority rights in India. Yet, his slogan of “Jai Palestine” in Parliament raised eyebrows, especially considering the sensitive nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict and India’s official stance on the matter. His actions, viewed by some as a deliberate provocation, have emboldened sections of his support base, as evidenced by the flag-waving incident. For critics, this act represents not just a protest against Israel but a larger defiance against India’s current leadership and the majority Hindu population.
The incident has also reignited discussions on India’s national identity, with many calling for a clear declaration of the country as a “Hindu Rashtra.” This demand stems from years of perceived appeasement policies, primarily by the Congress, which have left many in the Hindu majority feeling marginalized. For these groups, the waving of Palestine flags is not merely an expression of solidarity with a foreign cause but a direct challenge to India’s cultural and religious fabric. However, the BJP’s inability to secure a decisive majority in the recent Lok Sabha elections, despite its “Abki Baar 400 Paar” campaign, indicates that the idea of a Hindu Rashtra remains a distant dream for now. India’s electorate, while supportive of the BJP’s governance in many areas, has not given the party the absolute mandate it seeks to reshape the country’s identity entirely. Until that happens, incidents like the one in Hyderabad will continue to surface, highlighting the country’s ongoing struggle between its pluralistic past and the desire for a more defined national identity. The waving of Palestine flags in Hyderabad, though reprehensible to many, is a symptom of a larger political and ideological battle playing out in India. On one side is a government that has recalibrated India’s foreign policy to be more pragmatic and aligned with national interests, particularly in its relationship with Israel. On the other side are opposition parties, led by Congress, which continue to evoke historical ties to Palestine as part of their broader strategy of Muslim appeasement. As India moves forward, these tensions are unlikely to dissipate anytime soon. The incident in Hyderabad is a reminder that India’s identity, both domestically and on the global stage, is still very much in flux. How the country navigates these competing narratives will define its political landscape in the years to come.
