Agreeing and disagreeing with each other’s political position is essential in a healthy democracy. However, there is an onus on those in the Government of India or those holding Constitutional positions to abide by the sovereign’s official position ~ or else clarify that they personally hold a different view from the one held by the government of which they are a part. While such personal honesty of holding a contrarian position from that of the dispensation of the day is common in mature democracies like Great Britain, it is not so common in India. On the contrary, Indian politics is given to painfully insincere homilies like, “abide by the decision of the party like a disciplined soldier” etc.

Brexit is a great example of how many prominent people within Britain’s various party ranks held divergent views, and often made common cause with many across the parliamentary aisle ~ as voting for-or-against their partisan lines is the norm there. But an essential feature of British politics is the relative probity, integrity, and steadfastness to hold a contrarian opinion publicly (not secretly fearing any career backlash).

Advertisement

They do not resort to mealy-mouthed innuendoes, loaded statements, or even resort to surreptitious dog whistling to suggest a position that is contrary to that of their party (or the government, if they are part of the same). Within the Conservative ranks, David Cameron was rep – laced by Theresa May, who was replaced by Boris Johnson, who was replaced by Liz Truss, till she was finally replaced by Rishi Sunak.

In each of these instances of replacing an individual from the Prime Ministership of the same partisan persuasion ~ the views of the individual holding the post were found to be untenable and those of the dissenting voice were given preference, facilitating an official change of governmental stand and position. So, those who wanted to change the sovereign’s official position did so in the most honest, mandated, and defined way, without resorting to metaphorical “cover fire” from what we in our context call ‘fringe elements’, troll armies, or any other form of unaccountable personnel. In Indian politics, the IsraelPalestine (now even the Lebanon) War is an example of divided opinions, as it should be.

Expectedly, the Left wing broadly supports one side i.e. the Palestinian perspective, whereas the Right wing tends to support the Israeli government’s viewpoint. To some extent it mirrors the broad spectrum of positions held in British politics where the Labour Party is more sympathetic to the Palestinian woes, whereas the Conservative ranks, less so. Even though now the Labour Party under Keir Starmer is far less pro-Palestinian in its position, as compared to his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. There seems to be a lot more ‘centrism’ in Starmer’s Labour politics, and that formally manifests in the official governmental stand.

However, India’s own societal polarisation and partisan politics based increasingly on religious-identity and denominations, has given an unnatural fillip to making common cause on the Israel-Palestine War. Somewhere the simplistic spirit of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ (predicated on religion) has created logic to defend or oppose the sides in this distant war. Given the dangerously charged throes that the national mood is in, it has forsaken all pretensions of nuance, maturity, and now even official sovereign position, to take stands that are not in conformity with the official governmental view. It is perfectly fine for individuals to hold such extreme views but not for those in governmental or constitutional posts, as they are supposedly subscribing to the governmental position.

It took the controversy of a ‘bag’ carried by an opposition leader with ‘Palestine’ emblazoned on it to elicit reactions from the Chief Minister of a State to query if the opposition felt the same way about the ensuing chaos in Bangladesh. So far so good, as it fits well with the noisy, boisterous, and even baiting style politics that is only natural in the competitive domain of the ‘world’s largest democracy’. Soon that democratic banter gave way to questionable suggestions of clear preference and defence of the Israeli viewpoint (in defiance to the stated Indian position).

While the electoral logic of this Chief Minister’s chosen reasoning was understandable, the larger and far more acute responsibility of upholding the sovereign stand was seemingly com promised. Incidentally days earlier, the said Chief Minister had also jumped to the defence of a High Court Judge (who too had forsaken the mandated restraint) and commented on a certain religious minority on the Uniform Civil Code ~ he was later called up by the Supreme Court collegium and presumably reprimanded and asked to refrain. But as it often happens, many times political officials in high office make many loose comments invoking the regrettable tact of societal ‘othering’ and are tellingly never repriman ded or taken to task, willy nilly sanctifying extremist positions.

Recently, while answering a Lok Sabha question on India’s stance on the much-bandied Palestine issue, the Minister of External Affairs reiterated, “India’s policy towards Palestine has been long standing and includes support for a negotiated two State solution, and the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine within secure and recognized borders, living side by side in peace with Israel. India also supports Palestine’s membership of the UN.” This (along with the rightful and additional denunciation of the 7th October terror attack by Hamas) has been the historical and unchanged official Indian position.

Importantly, it is not a position that is liked by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who does not agree with the ‘two-state’ solution or for UN membership of Palestine. That said, India has simultaneously not allowed its historically principled position on Palestine to come in the way of engaging further with Israel, on other fronts. In fact, there is a healthy and growing trend of trade and commerce, purchase of military hardware and sharing of crucial intelligence with Israel that need not warrant surrendering a moral position on Palestine.

Statecraft and diplomacy need not fall prey to bigoted partisan politics that demonstrates a smallness of spirit based on religiosity and consequently, societal divide. Not disabling or pulling up those who do not respect the country’s sovereign position (who also do not state their individual opinion to be at variance with the governmental stand), is tantamount to legitimizing double-speak where perhaps one thing is officially stated but another is publicly (and deliberately) implied.

(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)