Why Indians must see themselves in Palestine
The genocidal war on Palestinians is a colonial one — Indians will find similar stories written in our own history
Sardar Udham, a 2021 Bollywood film based on the life of Punjabi revolutionary freedom fighter Udham Singh, was met with almost universal acclaim by Indian society. The film, based in the dying days of the British Raj, centres Singh’s assassination of Michael O’Dwyer, who served as the “Lieutenant Governor” of Punjab during the infamous 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in which British troops fired on protestors incessantly until they ran out of ammunition. With an 8.4/10 rating on IMDb and a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, this film seems to have successfully touched Indians at home and abroad alike, serving as a reminder of the collective memory and rooted understanding of the oppression, subjugation, and exploitation of the colonial period.
Shortly after initial reports of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, lead by the Al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Hamas), Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the operation as a “terrorist attack” and expressed “solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour”. The framing of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as a “terrorist attack” may not be particularly remarkable within western narratives, but it is a curious framing in the Indian context.
“Islamic Terrorism” — A False Narrative
India was the first non-Arab country to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s, eventually giving it full diplomatic status in the 1980s — the same decade in which the United States officially designated the PLO as a terrorist organization. Even today, unlike in the US and other allied countries, Hamas is not actually designated as a terrorist entity by the Government of India. So what is at play here when Modi condemns Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as “terrorist attacks”?
Well, it would not seem to surprise many that the same man who oversaw and fanned the flames of the 2002 anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat, and recently addressed voters in Rajasthan in an openly islamophobic tirade positioning Muslims as serial child-producers and “infiltrators”, would have no qualms flattening Palestinian resistance as simply “Islamic terrorism”. “Islamic terrorism” has been a lightning rod of regressive reaction in Indian politics from even before the Modi era. The designation of Palestinian resistance, and thus Palestinians by proxy, as “Islamic terrorists” serves as an “intellectual shortcut” for how Indians should think about the situation of Palestine and “Israel”.
“Jews in ‘Israel’ are threatened by Islamic extremism the same way Hindus are threatened by it in India — both Jews and Hindus being ‘global minority’ religious groups”, the logic goes.
This mythology might animate Hindu nationalists globally to be a loud voice in support of “Israel” over the past 8 months. But Indians that don’t consider themselves fervent Hindutva partisans (or Muslims) might be left with the impression that they have no stake or standing in this “conflict”, leaving many Indians to fall into apathy on this issue.
This, however, is not an issue that Indians should be feeling apathetic about, especially given the Indian subcontinent’s history of colonialism, oppression, and exploitation. The primary contradiction between Palestine and “Israel” is not religious — it is not between Muslims and Jews. The primary contradiction is colonialism.
A Common History of Colonialism: Palestine and India
Zionism as Euro-Colonialism
Though the conditions were different, Palestine, like much of the Indian subcontinent, also came under the colonial rule of the British. The end of the First World War resulted in Britain seizing Palestine from the defeated Ottoman Empire, of which Palestine was previously a part. The British governed Palestine between 1920 and 1948, although, during this period, it was preparing for a transfer of power. In 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, which promised the establishment of a “Jewish national home” in Palestine.
Why a “Jewish national home”? The British government can be understood to be responding to the growing movement of Zionism in that era. Contrary to insinuations that Zionism is a movement that is in the spirit of self-determination, Zionism was a colonial movement that capitalized on the very legitimate plight of Jews in eastern Europe, who were increasingly subject to violent anti-semitism in the region, to support their elite-led movement. If one is having a hard time believing that the Zionist movement is a colonial one, don’t take it from me. Instead, read the words of one of the founding fathers of Zionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, in 1923:
“Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls on the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot — or else I am through with playing at colonization.”1
Furthermore, stalwarts of the movement at the time, not least of which was Theodore Herzl, considered the “father of Zionism”, made it clear that this “Jewish state” must be ushered in through the collaboration of one of the European imperial powers.2 In an era where colonialism was fashionable, the elite leaders of the Zionist movement believed the solution to anti-semitism in Europe was for Jews to take up a colonial project of its own, to accord themselves the same stature as other European colonial powers. It was clear founders like Herzl viewed this as a '“civilizational” pursuit. In The Jewish State, Herzl wrote, regarding the Zionist colonization of Palestine:
“The unthinking might, for example, imagine that this exodus would have to take its way from civilization into the desert. That is not so! . . . We should there form part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism. . . . [Europe] would have to guarantee our existence.”3
If this language about “civilization” sounds familiar to Indians, it’s because it is. It is no secret that the British (along with other Europeans, especially the French) legitimized their colonial conquests by rationalizing Indians (and other colonized peoples) as barbaric savages, while constructing themselves to be enlightened. 19th century British politician Thomas Babington Macaulay, tasked with introducing “modern” education in India in the 1830s, insisted on the superiority of European “civilization”:
“. . . a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.”
And that, because it would be impossible to educate the masses of Indians, it would be necessary to:
“form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, — a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”
The Nakba and the Partition of British India
While one should not overstate the similarity between the Palestinian Nakba (“Catastrophe” in Arabic) and the partition of British India, there are certainly common elements between them that form enough of a basis for shared understanding and solidarity between Indians and Palestinians.
The flow of Jewish settlers into Palestine, facilitated by the British, meant that the Zionist movement was growing in political and military capacity, culminating finally in the forced expulsion and ethnic cleansing of at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and their lands, in the process killing around 15,000 Palestinians. This expulsion was inherently colonial in nature and the violence inflicted on the Palestinian people was extreme and brutal.
One of the major flashpoints of the 1948 Nakba was the massacre in the village of Deir Yassin, where unspeakable atrocities were committed by Zionist militias. In one instance, Zionist “soldiers” at a bakery asked the baker to throw his son into the communal oven. After the father refused to do so, the “soldiers” knocked him to the ground and threw his son into the oven for him, before throwing the father into the oven as well taunting him by saying, “Follow your son, he needs you there”. Apart from this one story, the Deir Yassin massacre consisted of Zionist “soldiers” spraying machine-gun bullets into houses, detonating explosives in houses that were filled with family members, systematic rape, and even the bayonetting of pregnant women, ripping out their unborn fetuses afterward for these dying women to witness. Today, not far from where the Deir Yassin village used to stand is Yad Vashem, “Israel’s” official memorial to victims of the Holocaust.
Palestinians in Gaza today, after hearing stories passed down about the Nakba from one generation to the next, find themselves amidst one themselves, except, unlike many of their ancestors who were able to flee to neighbouring countries, they are locked into the Gaza strip, forced to flee several times from one place to another, only, within it.
The Nakba was the culmination of a settler colonial project that had been developing until that point, which had the intent and outcome of expelling the Indigenous population of the land. Though the partition of British India was not that, it resulted in the mass displacement of about 15 million people and unleashed a tsunami of violence between Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs akin to a civil war, resulting in the deaths of between 1 million and 2 million. What unites these two experiences was the conditions of depravity — the “hells on earth”, if you will — that was manufactured by colonial imposition.
Shortly after the great Indian Rebellion of 1857 (which I touch on later), the British understood that this rebellion was made possible by the tangible unity between Hindu and Muslim soldiers. The rebellion threatened the British so much that it resulted in the British Crown taking over the administration of the sub-continent from the East India Company the very next year in 1858. This also marked the beginning of a strategic counter-insurgency by the British to avoid facing any similar threat: divide and rule. The thinking was that animosity between Hindus and Muslims would deter any “native” capacity to further resist British rule. Among several other manifestations of divide and rule stretching from 1858 until partition, the 1909 Minto-Morley reforms established separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims. This strategy of counter-insurgency sowed deep distrust, animosity, and hostility between communities.
As the country got closer to some form of independence, political manifestations in support of the elite factions of what would become the ruling classes of Pakistan and India, the Muslim League and Indian National Congress respectively, became increasingly antagonistic to each other and increasingly violent. The British, wanting their exit from India to look graceful and diplomatic especially following their weakened status after WW2, feared that this rise in violence could lead to a civil war, which they did not want on their watch. This lead to them rushing the transfer of power, attempting to pull out as fast as they can. As a result, two states on the basis of religion would be formed as a band-aid to wish away the potential for a civil war. The borders were drawn hastily by a British man who had never been to India, and the final borders were only announced several days after both countries had declared independence. Suddenly, communities found themselves on the “wrong” side of the border, and had to pick up and leave as soon as they could, or risk being harmed or killed by sectarian mobs belonging to the “opposite” religion.
The violence of partition was atrocious; children as young as 1 year old were brutally killed, people were taken captive, doused with oil, and burnt alive, and women, especially, were uniquely affected. Because women were viewed as the “honour” of individual men as well as of the family, this made them targets by outsiders. Women were subject to unspeakable levels of sexual violence. Their status as upholding the “honour” of the family even led their husbands, brothers, or fathers to kill them, to prevent capture and conversion by others. Many women took this preservation of their honour as a responsibility of their own, resulting in mass suicides, as was the case in the village of Thoha Khalsa, a Sikh-majority village, where 90 women jumped to their death into a well.
Weaponizing Hunger
Following Hamas’ democratic victory in the 2006 elections conducted in the occupied Palestinian territories, and specifically its consolidation of governance in the Gaza strip, “Israel” imposed a siege and naval blockade of the Gaza strip. This meant that, even though “Israel” withdrew its military presence within the strip as well as its settlers in 2005, it strictly controlled what flowed into and out of Gaza. Part of this siege was controlling the food supply and water that Palestinians in Gaza consumed. In the words of a senior advisor to the “Israeli” prime minister at the time, the policy was “to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” A 2008 declassified document from the “Israeli” government outlined “red lines” for minimum caloric intake prescribed to each Palestinian in Gaza based on which imports of food into the strip would be calculated. However, these “red lines” were found to be consistently unmet, causing many in Gaza to become food-insecure and reliant on humanitarian aid. A UN report from 2012 predicted that Gaza would become unliveable by the year 2020 with “no reliable sources of safe drinking water” among several other persistent issues.
India saw 6 major famines between 1873 and 1943. Throughout all of them, the British administration continued to export food out of India. The 1943 Bengal Famine was unique in that it was the only famine not to be scientifically correlated with the presence of drought — hence, a man-made famine. A combination of wartime inflation, food hoarding, and speculative buying was determined to contribute to pricing out the masses of Bengalis from being able to purchase food. Even under these circumstances, when Britain’s wartime cabinet, headed by hero of the west, Winston Churchill, was warned that further draining resources out of India for the war effort would result in or exacerbate famine, it chose to continue exporting rice out of India. Churchill infamously blamed the famine on Indians for “breeding like rabbits”, as well as asked how M.K. Gandhi was still alive if the famine was so severe.
The common experience of the colonial weaponizing of hunger is important to remember especially at a time where Gaza is currently facing a famine that is disproportionately affecting children, and that is manufactured by “Israeli” officials blocking humanitarian aid trucks from entering the strip, in addition to zealous “Israeli” settlers taking it upon themselves to block this aid.
Honouring Indian Anti-Colonial Freedom Fighters by Supporting Palestinian Resistance
![r/HistoryPorn - Palestinian Resistance fighters reading copies of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong" in 1970. [720 x 701]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Vp9m!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Faf9dd90f-fe7e-4b6b-b474-4ec64a90d7d4_720x701.jpeg "r/HistoryPorn - Palestinian Resistance fighters reading copies of \"Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong\" in 1970. [720 x 701]")
The saying goes, “History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.”
On December 23, 1929, the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, the same organization Udham Singh from Sardar Udham was affiliated with, bombed a train carrying the “Viceroy” of India4 at the time (though he was unharmed) as part of their political work in opposing British rule in India. This was met with fierce condemnation by Gandhi who moved a resolution at a session of the Congress in Lahore to congratulate the “Viceroy”:
“This Congress deplores the bomb outrage perpetrated on the Viceroy's train and reiterates its conviction that such action is not only contrary to the creed of the Congress but results in harm being done to the national cause. It congratulates the Viceroy and Lady Irwin and their party including the poor servants on their fortunate and narrow escape.”
If this sounds familiar, it’s because history is rhyming. The aforementioned example demonstrates how ridiculous it might sound for one to express “empathy” or even “solidarity” with Palestinians, but who simultaneously preface their “solidarity” with a condemnation of October 7 or Hamas.
As previously mentioned, most countries in the world do not designate Hamas, or any of the other Palestinian resistance groups that coordinated with it on Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, as a “terrorist organization”. A quick Google search will show that those that have made such a designation are firmly in the pro-western camp that supports “Israel” to the hilt. In fact, the Palestinian resistance groups’ right to armed struggle is actually protected under international law, as China recently reaffirmed at the International Court of Justice. The United Nations General Assembly resolution 37/43 affirms
“the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”
The UN’s recognition of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza strip as occupied territories reaffirms the aforementioned resolution (though it is important to remember that all of the land “Israel” sits on is occupied Palestinian land).
Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and “Israel” in its aftermath
As many Palestinians will attest to, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7 initiated a new phase of the Palestinian struggle, though not without severe backlash from the Zionist state. This military operation taken up by the resistance was primarily launched against military targets and armed individuals, with the aim of taking captives for negotiations with “Israel” over the thousands of Palestinian prisoners that are held captive by “Israel”, many of whom do not even have a charge or trial. The October 7 offensive threw a wrench in the works of “Israel’s” desire to project itself as a stable regime with unassailable military capacities.
Despite “Israel’s” Iron Dome defense system and the $3.8 billion per year it receives in military aid from the United States, the “Israeli” military was caught seriously off guard as resistance fighters breached the Gaza border at 30 different points and additional fighters circumvented the border by using self-engineered makeshift paragliders to fly into the lands from which their ancestors were expelled. Many “Israeli” soldiers were so unprepared that they were unaware of any attacks until they woke up to resistance fighters in their sleeping quarters.
Even following the October 7 operation, the Palestinian resistance have demonstrated a high level of organization, commitment to the struggle, and extraordinary resilience as the fighters, too, are subjected to the barbaric “Israeli” onslaught, including food insecurity. The guerrilla tactics of the resistance (including the use of Gaza-manufactured artillery and makeshift drones), coupled with the opening of a northern front by Hezbollah, have proven to be stretching the “Israeli” military thin, leaving “Israel”, 8 months in to this genocidal war, unable to meet its primary objective of “eradicating Hamas”. These guerrilla tactics have also proven to be the direct cause of many tactical withdrawals by the “Israeli” military.
Zooming out further, the chain of dominoes that have been triggered by the Palestinian resistance on October 7 have transformed the equation of power and balance of forces on the ground. With its economy severely impacted by the urgent mobilization of reservists and loss of Palestinian labour, a decline in investment in its tech sector, the exodus of half a million “Israelis” just 3 months into the war, and the series of internal contradictions that have been sharpened amongst the “Israeli” ruling elite, it is difficult to foresee “Israel” returning to its October 6 status quo ante. Most significantly, the carnage “Israel” has unleashed on Gaza has left it with a serious legitimacy crisis at a time when “Israel” was banking on forging stronger ties within the West Asian (Middle East) region, especially through a desired normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, after “Israel” normalized relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in 2020 through US mediation. “Israel’s” legitimacy crisis is most acute among Global South countries, who may have increasing difficulty believing that the “Israeli” state is a rational actor, in line with “liberal” and “democratic” values. This is probably best encompassed through the words of Colombian President Gustavo Petro, delivered in a speech earlier this year:
“Germany . . . France, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and above all, the United States of America . . . support dropping bombs on people because they are making a demonstration in front of the whole of humanity, that what happens to Palestine can happen to any of you if you dare to make changes without their permission.”
It is clear, then, that the Palestinian resistance have proven to be effective political actors in challenging the colonial status quo by jeopardizing both the stability and legitimacy of “Israel” on the global stage.
Indian Anti-Colonial Resistance against the British
Much like the circumstances “Israel” is finding itself in today as a result of the efforts of the Palestinian resistance, the British in India did not decide benevolently to leave India and grant independence. The struggle for independence on the subcontinent was a protracted process that involved, in much the same way the Palestinian resistance is currently doing, contesting the equation of power and balance of forces over a period of time.
The most famous of such struggles was the Indian Rebellion of 1857, sometimes known as the First War of Independence. The causes of the rebellion were multifaceted, including discontent among the Indian ranks of the military, though it was more broadly precipitated by the growing dominance of the British colonial elite over the existing ruling aristocratic classes across India and the disruption of the traditional order of religion, caste, and property5. The result was Indian sepoys revolting against their British officers, in many cases shooting them, and leading a march to Delhi, from where the rebellion spread to surrounding areas. As mentioned, though this rebellion was violently suppressed, with Indians being subjected to a brutal revenge campaign from the British, and resulted in the replacement of East India Company rule with direct Crown rule, it materially resulted in the initiation of a process of policy consultation with Indians, prior to which substantial Indian involvement in political affairs was practically non-existent. Once again, much like the Palestinian resistance is doing today, this First War of Independence forced onto the British a series of considerations and dilemmas that could not be resolved without a reconfiguration of the power system at the time.
Indian history, since then, has seen several other uprisings and revolts against British colonial rule, each playing its own role in further contributing to the reconfiguration of colonial power. Some such notable rebellions include the Naga Rebellion of 1879-1880, the Bhumkaal Rebellion of 1910, and the Manyam Rebellion of 1922-1924, among others.
Of note during this period between the First War of Independence in 1857 and the transfer of power in 1947 is the writings of Michael O’Dwyer, the same former “Lt. Governor” of Punjab that was shot and killed by Udham Singh. In his book India As I Knew It, 1885-1920, O’Dwyer repeatedly refers to both Indian and Irish anti-British political activities as “terrorism”. In fact, it happens to be one of his most serious preoccupations throughout the book.
Therefore, as peoples with a colonial background and history of anti-colonial struggle, Indians have no business accepting the imperialist powers’ narrative of “terrorism” at face value. History demonstrates how such narratives are weaponized against the interests of the oppressed masses globally. It is in our interest, then, as anti-imperialists to take the struggle of the Palestinian resistance seriously, understand how it has put Palestinian sovereignty back on the table, and ally ourselves with its cause.
Growing Military Entanglement between India and “Israel”
Given the common experience of colonialism between India and Palestine, surely the Indian government has continued to express solidarity with the Palestinian cause, right? Unfortunately not. In fact, India has become increasingly reliant on “Israel” for military imports, thus continuing to support the very same industry within “Israel” that is on the frontlines of colonizing Palestine. Today, India is “Israel’s” largest defense client. Since the Modi era, “Israeli” weapons have even started to be manufactured within India. As part of Modi’s “Make in India” program, a weapons manufacturing facility was opened in Hyderabad in 2018 by Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India Ltd., a joint venture between the two Indian and “Israeli” weapons companies. This Indian factory has been producing the Hermes 900 drones, which has regularly been used in Gaza, including over the past 8 months. There are reports that the factory in Hyderabad produced 20 Hermes 900 drones for export to “Israel” in February of this year — in the midst of this genocide.
The same infrastructure and technologies of repression used against Palestinians are simultaneously used domestically against Indians, and against oppressed nationalities under Indian occupation, namely Kashmiris.
Indian Counter-Insurgency against Adivasi Peasants
The eastern and central regions of India, encompassing the states of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh, among others, constitute some of India’s most resource-rich regions, containing iron, coal, uranium, gold, and more. This region is also largely inhabited by Adivasi peasants, indigenous to these areas. For years, even stretching back to the Bhumkaal Rebellion (and before), Adivasi peasants in these areas have been resisting encroachment and exploitation of their land. Today, that takes the form of foreign and Indian corporations alike looking to mine the resources of their lands, resulting in their displacement. To facilitate this, the Indian government has sent its own forces as well as established paramilitary forces, such as the Salwa Judum, to secure these areas, force Adivasi peasants out, and repress any resistance. In opposition to the sale of their land for corporations to exploit, as well as the state and paramilitary repression that facilitates it, Adivasi peasants have, over decades, organized resistance to this. These resource-rich areas are a stronghold for the Communist Party of India (Maoist), largely composed of Adivasi peasants, but there also exists other forms of resistance outside of the Communist Party, including organic democratic people’s resistance which is largely unarmed. However, ever since the Congress government in 2006 called the armed insurgency of the CPI Maoist India’s “single biggest internal security challenge”, a fierce counter-insurgency has developed, painting all Adivasi peasants in these regions with one broad stroke, calling them “Maoists” or “Naxalites”. This has allowed state forces to target these areas indiscriminately, whether these individuals are armed or not, whether they are actual Maoists or not. For around two decades now the Indian state’s counter-insurgency against Adivasi peasants has been ramping up. A significant shift took place recently, where India’s counter-insurgency measures no longer just consist of boots on the ground, whether it be state forces or paramilitary forces, but as of 2021, the Indian state has started aerial bombings of these areas, using “Israeli”-made weapons to do so. This was not a one-off event and aerial bombardments have continued since then.
For those who may wonder why Indians should even bother pondering the plight of Palestinians when there are Indians at home that are suffering from all sorts of issues, this section shows that the ruling classes across the world (including India and “Israel”) are innovative enough to collaborate in transnational repression. Why, then, shouldn’t Indians and Palestinians similarly find common cause in each others’ plight through international solidarity?
Indian Occupation of Kashmir
India’s growing ties with “Israel” has facilitated the former’s occupation of Kashmir. In fact, the Hindu nationalist right especially, though not exclusively, have openly been looking to “Israel” for inspiration on how to “deal with” Kashmir. In 2019, shortly after the Indian government abrogated Article 370, which guaranteed the then-state of Jammu & Kashmir semi-autonomous status, India’s consul general in New York was caught on film advocating for an “‘Israeli’ model” in Kashmir, referring to a facilitated resettling of Kashmiri Pandits6 into the region, along the lines of “Israeli” settler colonialism. He continued to say:
“I think we all have to keep the Kashmiri culture alive. The Kashmiri culture is the Indian culture. It is the Hindu culture.”
“We have never used our strength as the majority community. We have never used the strength of our Hindu culture.”
Taken together, he seems to be advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Muslims, favouring the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit community as representative of the interests of the Indian state.
In another case, just this year, in the middle of “Israel’s” genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, Indian scientist Anand Ranganathan called for an “‘Israel’-like solution in Kashmir”. He continued to say, “‘Israel’ has catered to its people who are hard done by, we haven’t”. He seems to be suggesting that “Israel’s” policy of colonial occupation and apartheid across Palestine shows its fiduciary responsibility to its Jewish population in a way that India isn’t, but should be, doing to its Kashmiri Hindu population.
The Indian-"Israeli" relationship is one that mutually reinforces each others’ occupations. While the situations of Palestine and Kashmir, including their histories, are not exactly the same, the legitimization of “Israel’s” continued occupation of Palestine has positive implications for the legitimization of India’s occupation of Kashmir, and vice versa. Common tactics exist between the “Israeli” and Indian occupations. Much like Palestinians in the West Bank, Kashmiris are subject to several military checkpoints. The Indian military in Kashmir are shielded by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which grants the army special impunity from legal oversight under the pretext of national security. Much like “Israel’s” policy of “administrative detention”, the Public Safety Act, applied in Kashmir, allows for Kashmiri boys to be picked up by authorities and held indefinitely without charge. Several of the military equipment that is received by India from “Israel” is used in the former’s militarization of Kashmir. In addition to military equipment, “Israel’s” surveillance technology is deployed in Kashmir, including sensors, thermal imaging devices, night vision imaging equipment, and Heron drones. The Pegasus spyware, developed by “Israeli” company NSO, has been used to target several Kashmiri figures.
As high-profile Indian elites have been advocating the application of the “‘Israeli’ model” to Kashmir, India -"Israel" ties, in the background, continue to strengthen as the two states conduct joint intelligence operations and joint personnel training sessions, all while increasing the flow of military goods into India.
Why Must Indians See Themselves in Palestine?
What we can learn from the ground covered in this article is that, in addition to the west’s propaganda about this genocide, the Indian ruling classes want you to believe the following things:
Either:
There’s no need to care about the Palestinian cause, because “they’re terrorists”; or,
If you do care about the Palestinian cause, India plays no role in enabling “Israel” to wage this genocidal war against Palestinians
Palestinian national liberation has no relationship to Indian peoples’ experiences of colonialism
Either:
If you do care about the cause of Palestinian national liberation, it is unrelated to Kashmir; or,
If you do not care about the Palestinian cause, then yes, Palestine and Kashmir are similar situations, and both must be dealt with militarily
This article has made clear that the Palestinian cause has close ties to the history of the Indian subcontinent. There are common experiences and shared understandings between the masses of Palestinians and those of the Indian subcontinent. The Indian ruling classes seem intent on creating distance between these two realities.
On one hand, they are able to mainstream an unapologetically anti-colonial film like Sardar Udham, while on the other hand, turn around and propagate the narrative of “Palestinian terrorism” all while normalizing “Israel’s” occupation. It is on us to connect with and embrace our own revolutionary histories, while simultaneously rejecting the false narratives fed to us by both the western propaganda machines as well as those of the Indian ruling classes.
On a broader level, October 7 marked the beginning of a polarization of the Global South against “Israel”. In December 2023, South Africa filed a lawsuit against “Israel” at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing it of genocide for its actions in Gaza. This was welcomed by several Global South countries, including the Maldives, Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey, Namibia, Bolivia, Colombia, and Brazil. Furthermore, several Global South countries, including Algeria, Chile, Mexico, Bangladesh, Djibouti, and Comoros, have filed complaints to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate potential war crimes in Gaza. India, who is increasingly trying to position itself as a “leader” of the Global South finds itself acting very differently from its peers. As recently as April 2024, India abstained on a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the illegal “Israeli” blockade on the strip. As it seeks to crack down on its own citizens and intensify its occupation of Kashmir, India is increasingly seeing itself in “Israel”.
Indians that are able to recognize “Israel’s” criminal actions against Palestinians must simultaneously be able to identify India’s involvement in enabling “Israel’s” actions, as well as India’s replication of these kinds of actions within the areas under its control.
Indians must draw on their anti-colonial history to ally themselves with Palestinians, while simultaneously recognizing how far the contemporary Indian state has strayed from this history.
Sumaya Awad and Annie Levin, “Roots of the Nakba: Zionist Settler Colonialism”, in Palestine: A Socialist Introduction, ed. Sumaya Awad and brian bean (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2020), 22.
Ibid., 25
Ibid., 25
The Viceroy was the highest position in the administration of the British Raj. He was the representative of the British monarch in India.
Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf, “Revolt, the modern state, and colonized subjects, 1848–1885”, in A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 92.
Many Kashmiri Pandits fled or were expelled from Kashmir during the 1990s due to an insurgent uprising in the region against Indian occupation.