Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hector.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!hector!martillo From: martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.nlang.india Subject: Re: Israeli Indian Relations Message-ID: <174@hector.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Nov-85 13:00:27 EST Article-I.D.: hector.174 Posted: Thu Nov 28 13:00:27 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 30-Nov-85 06:26:44 EST References: <425@eneevax.UUCP> Reply-To: martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) Distribution: net Organization: MIT Project Athena Lines: 63 Xref: watmath net.politics:12243 net.nlang.india:837 In article <425@eneevax.UUCP> velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) writes: > > >>From J. Abeles: (abeles@mhuxm.UUCP) >> >>I don't want to be presumptuous. However, presuming that >>you are East Indian, are you aware of the policies pursued by >>the Indian government which prevent Israeli Jewish scientists >>from attending scientific meetings in India? Check out the >>letters section of the most recent issue of PHYSICS TODAY >>for a personal account of Natan Andrei, an internationally >>known scientist (whom I am acquainted with) and who was denied >>a visa when it was revealed that he travels under an Israeli >>passport. Would you defend such policies, I wonder? > > >India does not have diplomatic relations (or didn't until very recently - >there was some talk of opening of consulates, etc... a few months to a year >ago) with Israel. This is because Indian jews WERE NOT ALLOWED to EMIGRATE >to ISRAEL. (by the Israeli government (I guess if it was by the Israeli >government, then the term should be Immigrate, but I am not sure) ). There >was some doubt as to the "purity" of the Indian jews, and this was just one >of the reasons why diplomatic relations where not formed. India was against >the formation (as much as it could have been, since the formation of Israel, >and the independence of India occurred very close together) of Israel because >it did not see a viable leadership for Palestine. Since the Palestinians >(sp?) had no viable leadership, India knew that the formation of Israel, and >the splitting of that land would plunge the region into chaos. It did. Actually, almost all Indian Jews emigrated to Israel in the 1950's. There was some question about mamzerut of one group of Indian Jews but that has nothing to do with Jewishness or eligibility for citizenship. In any case even for non-Jews gaining Israeli citizenship is quite easy. I think I could easily have been against the formation of India on the grounds of potential anarchy in the subcontinent. Certainly more people have been killed in Muslim/non-Muslim violence in India than in the Middle East. >Also, India has grave problems with the way the S. Africans have treated >non-Afrikaaners (sp?), or non Whites. Regardless of the PERSECUTION of the >Blacks in S. Africa, Israel continues to be one of S. Africa's 5 largest >trading partners, and vice-versa. India has much more trade with S. Africa than Israel does. Also a much larger number of Indians than Jews live in S. Africa and they seem to do well. >The military cooperation between S. Africa and Israel is also well known - >why should India have diplomatic relations with a country whose peers in the >fellowship of nations happen to be such biggots (as in S. Africa)? There is no military cooperation between S. Africa and Israel. Actually traditional Indian culture seems quite similar to Apartheid. I know Gandhi was quite upset that as a British citizen he was not treated equal to the whites. As far as I know he never condemned the subjugation of the blacks. Given the amount of lies and hypocrisy in Sinha's article, I would, if I were an Israeli and if Sinha's attitudes were typical of Indians, be quite glad that Israel and India had little in the way of relations. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami