?Jerusalem And Ayodhya

To a large number of Indians who are? aware of their recent past, a clear parallel could be seen between the ongoing violence in Jerusalem and what happened in Ayodhya in the early 1990s. A large band of kar sevaks belonging to the Hindu right-wing parties had then stormed into this Uttar Pradesh town and demolished the 16th century mosque, ??Babri Masjid, sparking off communal riots and high-profile terrorist acts in the country, including the Bombay Bomb Blasts of 1993.

India had to pay a heavy price for it, both in terms of its security and also in its international standing as the world's largest pluralistic democracy.

??Several opinion makers in Israel now fear that something similar could be happening in their country.

?E?xperts are still divided on whether the spurt of stabbing and shooting incidents in Jerusalem that have claimed the lives of nearly 40 people should be described as the third 'intifada' of the Palestinians. A number of Israeli commentators are deeply perturbed that the push by Jewish hardliners, particularly the religious messianic sections to take control of Temple Mount that houses the Al Aqsa mosque as well as the ‘Wailing Wall,' could lead to large?-?scale violence and give birth to a serious civil war within the country.

One of the most popular Rabbis Shmuel Eliyahu's remarks is just an example of the kind of provocative statements that have been coming out in recent weeks from hardliners in Israel. "The government should tell Muslims occupying the site that they have been keeping it for us up to now and that they can now leave for Syria"—much on the lines of what one often gets to hear from sections in India asking Muslims to go to Pakistan.

The fact that he made these remarks at a ceremony organised by the Jerusalem Municipality shows the encouragement such hardliners have been getting from sections of the government.

"The terror attacks aren't just about concerns for the Al Aqsa Mosque, but Palestinian concerns for their mosque aren't groundless," observed Sefi Rachlevsky, a well-?known Israeli author and theology expert in his Haaretz column on ?last?Thursday. The reference was clearly to the rising frustration among large number of Palestinians for their prolonged humiliation at the hands of Israeli authorities, the threat posed by the expanding Jewish settlement encroaching steadily into their area and disappointment with the Palestinian Authorities' failure to break the status quo.

Capturing the mood among the Palestinians,? commentator Gideon Levy asks his Israeli readers, "Did you really think Israel would continue on its course and they'd just bow their head in submission? Do you know many historical examples of a brutal occupation that persisted without stoking resistance?"

But Rachlevsky sees a more sinister design. He argued that rabbis who send their disciples to the mountain—in contravention of common religious rulings—aren't interested in prayers; certainly not while showing respect for Al Aqsa. "They are interested in building the temple, while removing the Muslims and their mosques. They are convinced that the violent Muslim reaction to their provocations will unite Jews in a struggle against Muslims. The violent Muslim reaction to the provocation will show everyone how dangerous and vicious they are, thus advancing their removal." He pointed out that "their aim is a messianic and ultra-nationalistic one: rebuilding the temple and removing Al Aqsa and the Muslims."

To ensure the situation does not deteriorate any further, Rachlevsky added, " Therefore, and not as a concession to violence, Israel must announce that Jews are forbidden from entering the compound and that Israel opposes the construction of a Third Temple."

In India, the government's failure to prevent a build-up throughout the early 1990s by the BJP and other outfits of the Sangh Parivar had finally led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992. The attempt by the BJP was definitely to polarise the majority Hindu voters and consolidate itself politically. But the demolition had brought in its wake large scale communal riots, followed by a series of terror attacks in Mumbai and elsewhere and allowed deep fissures within the society to come to the surface.

It is not without significance that there is a renewed interest in India since Narendra Modi's victory to forge even closer ties with Israel. Though ties between the two countries had been growing steadily since India and Israel established full diplomatic relations in 1992. There is a wide scale expectation in both Delhi and Tel Aviv on how deep and strong their ties could be established in the next three and half years of the Modi government. Modi has already made it clear that he will be the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel—a journey that is expected to take place early next year.

In this context President Pranab Mukherjee's visit to the country and the region that was undertaken from October 10-15, was extremely important and politically significant. As the first head of state to visit Israel,? President Mukherjee also ensured he included Jordan and Palestine in his itinerary to West Asia. He also became the first Indian President to visit these three countries?,? thus striking a diplomatic balance between India's growing ties with Israel with its traditional links to the Arab world, particularly its "steadfast" support to the Palestinian cause and struggle for a homeland, to indicate closeness with Tel Aviv was not at the cost of Palestine.

But while the strategic importance of Israel in India's foreign policy agenda can hardly be underplayed, Indians w?ould do well to keep the difference between the two countries and the situation they find themselves in mind. India and Israel both emerged as independent nations around the same time. But while the Indian independence struggle has been largely non-violent in nature, the Jewish leaders fighting for an independent homeland had often resorted to the worst form of terrorism to achieve their goal.

A tragic but important reminder of this perhaps was the majestic King David Hotel in Jerusalem where the Indian President was staying. The sprawling complex, built in 1931 with locally quarried pink limestone situated at the centre over Jerusalem, overlooking the Old City and Mount Zion, has had a chequered past. Like President Pranab Mukherjee, it has frequently hosted several heads of state, dignitaries and other personalities during their stay in this historic city. But in the past seven decades it has been witness to a number of important developments in Israeli history of Jerusalem, including the July 1946 bombing of the hotel by Jewish terrorist groups killing over 91 people and injuring several others in demand of their homeland.

"India is disturbed at the recent violence. India condemns all forms of terrorism," Mukherjee told his hosts in Jerusalem without specifically blaming either the Palestinians or the Israelis. But stressing on the urgent need for stopping the violence and restarting peace talks, he added," we have always advocated a peaceful resolution of all disputes."

In fact, the strength that a pluralistic country like India and Israel can draw from its diversity had been one of the recurring themes of President Mukherjee speeches in Israel. These remarks while true for Israel, grappling as it is with growing violence and dissatisfaction among its Jewish and Muslim population, were perhaps as relevant also for India where a renewed debate is on about the status of the religious minorities in a Hindu-majority country.

India and Israeli ties are bound to go stronger in the coming days as there are a wide range of areas where the two can cooperate with each other. But the Indian leadership should be mindful of its inherent strength rather than giving in to nudging from hard line Jewish sections to make the fight against "Islamic terror" the main plank of their future cooperation and partnership.