As India draws closer and buys more military hardware from Israel,
questions are raised about what that will mean to traditional key
defense suppliers, the US and Russia, as well as New Delhi’s relations
with Palestine.
Global powers including
France, the UK, Japan, the US and Israel have been keenly
courting India – the world’s largest arms importer – in their
quest to bag some lucrative deals as New Delhi begins an
ambitious defense upgrade plan with an estimated budget of
$100 billion.
But it is Israel that seems to be stealing most of the show, with
two mega-deals already closed with New Delhi. The first is 262
Barak-I air defense missiles for the Indian Navy. The second for
8,356 Israeli Spike anti-tank guided missiles and 321 launchers
is more significant as it was on a faceoff with America’s Javelin
missile.
In August then-US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel visited India to pitch for the US missiles.
The two arms deals with Israel are worth $662 million which is more than all Israeli
exports to India in the last three years.
As India - which accounted for nearly 10 percent of the $63
billion international defense market in 2013 – is seemingly drawn
closer to Israel for defense acquisition, several questions
arise:
- What happens to India’s defense ties with the US which has
clearly shown interest in entering the Indian arms market?
- What about Russia – India’s large weapons supplier?
What about India’s relations with Palestine?
According to analysts, Israeli missile systems, surveillance, and
ordnance systems have technically addressed one immediate Indian
requirement - border fortification and monitoring of terrorist
activities.
Current deals are expected to brace India’s combat capability in
its on-going struggle to contain rising violence on the border
with Pakistan, or incidents such as the recent standoff with
Chinese troops following a border incursion, ironically
coinciding with President Xi’s India visit, and also strengthen
its maritime patrol capacity.
India has also been invited to cooperate with Israel’s
cybersecurity project which has the surveillance capabilities
over terrorist networks and their movement.
Israel over US?
However, technical details apart, there are other reasons why
India went ahead with Israel over an American offering.
Many trace it back to the legacy of the Indo-US relationship. As
Michael Kugelman, Senior Program Associate for South and
Southeast Asia Woodrow Wilson International Center, says,
“
India likes to focus on the countries with which it has a
long and sustained defense relationship - and these mainly
consist of Russia, France, and Israel. Given the volatile
relationship it has historically had with the US--including a
very troubled period during the Cold War - the United States does
not necessarily meet the criteria of a long and sustained defense
relationship. Only in the last 20 years or so have defense ties
with Washington truly taken off.”
Also, the Israeli proposals were closely aligning with Indian PM
Narendra Modi’s newly launched “Make in India” initiative which aims at
spurring domestic manufacturing. Joint production and development
of defense equipment and technology transfer are an important
part of this campaign – a demand that Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu is said to have readily accepted.
Reportedly, both countries are already collaborating on building
an integrated anti-missile system to be assimilated into
the indigenously developed Prithvi air defense system.
Contrary to that, while US arms exports to India are at a
whopping $25.2bn in 2013, India’s main concern as of
today is the transfer of technical know-how from foreign
countries so next generation equipment that could be built
indigenously – something New Delhi feels the US still falls short
on.
Would that it mean Israel would outdo the US as India’s defense
partner?
“
Not necessarily”, says Kugelman. “
Like its
relationship with the US, India's ties have deepened with Israel
only in recent years. Defense plays a key role in both the
relationships. As the US-India relationship continues to
deepen-and I think this should happen in the coming months, with
the US downsizing its military role in Afghanistan- defense will
be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bilateral
relationship.”
India diversifying – a message for Moscow?
New Delhi is keen on creating a diplomatic balance in all its
international dealings. Defense being one of the most important
portfolios, the Modi government will certainly avoid
overdependence on one partner. This could be a message for long
time supplier Russia that India is expanding its options.
While Russia remains a steady source for acquiring T90 tanks,
Su-30 MKI fighters, New Delhi has been looking at supplanting its
arsenal of Russian-made MiG 21 and MiG 29 fighter jets which have
suffered a series of crashes.
New Delhi has also expressed its displeasure on Russia’s longish
delivery timeframe for the fifth-generation stealth fighter
aircraft (FGFA).
So the need for diversification of sources of arms acquisition,
feel analysts, has led India closer to Israel, but it will
certainly not stop there.
While the newly appointed Indian Defense Minister Manohar
Parrikar is given the task of procuring 126 multi-role fighter jets from France’s
Dassault Aviation worth $15 billion, India is also looking at
buying Japanese US-2 amphibious aircraft that can be
used in search and rescue operations.
However Kugelman feels political rhetoric suggest Russia will
remain a very significant and certainly top-defense partner of
India. “
A few months back Narendra Modi said that Indian
children will always say that India's best friend is Russia,
because Russia has "been with India" during times of
crisis.”
He adds that one trajectory which could determine Russia-India
defense ties is whether India decides to deepen its energy
relations with Russia. There is an opportunity now, given that
Russia has found its traditional importers in Western Europe more
reluctant in light of Russia's stance on Ukraine. If India pushes
forward with Russia on this front, then defense ties could really
intensify as well.
Palestine question
The burgeoning Indo-Israel relationship also brings up another
question – what about Palestine? After all, India was the only
non-Arab country to have recognized Palestine in 1988. New Delhi,
with a history of being a staunch supporter of the Palestinian
cause, also refused diplomatic ties with Israel until 1992.
Even recently it backed the United Nations Human Rights Council
call for an investigation into Israel’s Gaza strike.
The Modi government, which is riding the success of being elected
to power on promises of pragmatic policy reforms, is breaking
many traditions. While the earlier governments have chosen to
keep Indo- Israel ties under wraps out of fear of upsetting the
Middle East and its own vast Muslim population, Modi seems to be
sending out a clear rhetoric that being with Israel doesn’t mean
it has abandoned Palestine.
So while he signs the Fortaleza Declaration calling on Israel and
Palestine to resume negotiations leading to a two-state solution
with a contiguous and economically viable Palestinian state
existing side by side in peace with Israel, marking a shift in
India’s usual overture, Modi also met Netanyahu in New York on the sidelines of
the UN General Assembly session in September this year.
National security was a very important part of Modi’s election
campaign. And as of today Israel strategically fits into India’s
needs – a factor which Modi can certainly not sacrifice for any
other consideration.
As Kugelman points out, “
New Delhi will want to maintain good
relations with both Israel and the Palestinians. And to this
point, it has somehow pulled off this balancing act
extraordinarily well.”
Six months on, pragmatism is seen to be an integral part of the
Modi government’s international diplomacy. From inviting
President Barack Obama as a chief guest at India’s republic day
celebrations lined up in January, seen by some as a tacit
departure from New Delhi’s non-alignment stance, to publically
espousing ties with Israel – the new government does not seem to
shy away from breaking-free from India’s ideological past if the
situation demands.
RT