Israel and Pakistan — a Comparative Study
Many times, people refer to Israel as a British created country. They claim that the people there are of foreign origin and not native to the land. They also claim that they had no uniting culture before the creation of Israel.
But are the Israelis alone in this sort of construct? Have the British also created other ethnic nations from the lands they once ruled? What lessons can Indians, especially Indian Muslims, take from this?
We shall discuss below.
The Origin of Palestine and India
The term “Palestine” is of Roman Pagan origin. When the British defeated the Ottoman Empire and took over the land for themselves, they chose to rename it after their great roman “ancestors” — the same way they do in other parts of the world. The same way the name “India” came to be associated with British rule. It was an ancient Greco-Roman name which took modern life when the imperial life of the British began.
We can already see the parallels. While the Indian Subcontinent was united by a spiritual identity before the series of invaders invaded her (starting from Muhammad Ibn Qasim), geographical borders with a Greco-Roman name was given by the British — from Sapta-Sindhu to Hindu (Persian) to Indo (Greco-Roman) — which gave us “India”.
Back to the spiritual identity of the Bharatian subcontinent, we can call it pan-Bharatism.
As for the Levant (we shall use the word Levant as a word neutral to both Israel and Palestine) there was an Egyptian culture, a Jordanian culture and a “transition” population between these two in this pan-Arab region where several Jews used to live. This region, regardless of boundaries, was home to several sacred sites of all three Jewish (or Abrahamic) faiths. The geographical boundaries of this nation-state (an European concept in and of itself) were given by the British — who renamed it after its Roman Pagan name Palestine — and hence created a new identity; a region with a mix of Lebanese, Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and Jewish people.
As we can see, pan-Bharatianism and pan-Arabism both found geographical borders and a “nation-state” identity thanks to the British. The Palestinians never saw themselves as Palestinians, but as “Arabs”. The Indians never saw themselves as Indian, but “Bharatiya".
Between the World Wars
Between World War 1 and World War 2, the parallels between the Palestinian and the Indian nations continue.
In India, the Indian Councils Act 1909 created two separate electorates — one for Muslims and one for Others (the pan-Bharatians). After this, in 1919, the Government of India Act 1919 was passed through the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, which crystallized the colonial creation of a fixed boundary for the British’s “India”.
In Palestine, a similar chain of events happened. Inspired by the two electorate system, the British used that as a basis for the Balfour Declaration 1917, which both created a “Palestine” (an artificial identity of pan-Arabs) as well as promised a return of the Jews to a “safe home” in the Levant in light of the rising anti-Semitism in Europe. The Palestine Arab Congress (which, unlike the Indian National Congress, was not recognised by the British) opposed the Balfour declaration, much like the INC opposed separate electorates.
The result in both cases was a compromise between the natives and the religious group — an aspiration for coexistence and a willingness to understand the other led to this. The pan-Bharatian had to accommodate the Muslim and the pan-Arab had to accommodate the Jew.
The period between the World Wars saw a rise of two movements —
1. The rise of the Zionist Movement in Europe
2. The rise of the Khilafat Movement in Bharat.
As we know, the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire led to the creation of Palestine. The same event also led to the Khilafat Movement within British India. The Palestinians worked with the Jews for Palestine and the Bharatians worker with the Muslims for Khilafat. Both these backfired on the indigenous communities.
Meanwhile, the rise of Christian Fascism across Europe led to the rapid marginalization of Jews in Europe, along with many reform movements (and modern “secular" ideas of a nation state like federalism, fascism, communism, etc) which allowed Christians to do business without permission of the Church (and by virtue without the Jews). Similarly, Indian Muslims adopted education reforms and entered the British mainstream, to get education without relying on the Hindus.
The Aftermath
The Zionist and the Pakistani movement ran in parallel with each other, like two Abrahamic twins; two halves of the same coin. A fear of persecution, grossly exaggerated and kept alive 100 years later (as even anti-Semitism is contested as exaggerated in Europe and Germany but written off as “conspiracy theories”), drove people out of their country of residence and forced them to congregate in a single “homeland” they called their own. These are respectively Israel and Pakistan.
Despite the diversity of population, a common language was decided — Hebrew and Urdu respectively. While Israel revived Hebrew (a formidable and respectable task), Pakistan spread the already existing Urdu (a lazy choice).
While Jewish people from all over the “Western sphere” migrated to Israel, Muslim people from all over the “Bharatian sphere” migrated to Pakistan.
This was what led to the creation of two stolen lands — Israel and Pakistan.
Common myths — Pakistan was agreed upon by all
There is a commonly held belief that Pakistan was signed upon by all communities of the subcontinent. While pan-Arabs got to debunk this myth, pan-Bharatians are not yet able to. Let’s analyse this below.
For starters, the INC never claimed to represent Hindu interests — rather, it was a party meant to represent all Indians; Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai.
Meanwhile, the Muslim League (ML) was a party for Muslim Interests alone.
For every Round Table Conference, for every Cabinet Mission Plan, every important discussion — it was assumed by the British and the Musalman that the INC represented all HIndus. Yet, the Indian National Congress never claimed to represent Hindu interest anywhere. They were always, and rightfully so, all about “every” Indian’s interests.
The British took the side of Muslims by giving them more representation, the same way they gave Jews more representation in the formation of Palestine, and then in the formation of Israel.
So the question again becomes — who represented the Hindus? When partition happened, were the Hindus of Sindh or Balochistan asked if they would like to separate from the Hingala Mata Mandir? Did the Sikhi Panth agree to have themselves separated from Guru Nanak’s birthplace? Could Punjabi Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhis come together and reach a common legal consensus without any “all-India” considerations, and then debate THEM with the Muslim League; the same way the Muslim League came to common consensuses without any “all-India” considerations to debate the INC?
The answer is “no”. The Natives of this land were denied the privilege from the British. The pan-Bharatian interest, just like the pan-Arab interest, was kept subservient to the community preferred by the Brits.
To conclude what I am saying with this article: Pakistan, in its 1947 rendition, is a piece of stolen land, that is stolen from pan-Bharatians. It is no different from the land stolen by Israel from the pan-Arabs.
Those who are in Bharat in 2023 supporting Palestine should think about the Israel at home called Pakistan. Those who are in Pakistan should ask themselves on what principles beyond religion do they oppose Israel?
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is as good as a Gaza Strip, and the Kashmiri exodus of the 90s is the same as what is happening today in Palestine in 2023.
This perspective may help develop some compassion for Israelis in Indian Muslims, or for Palestinians in extreme Indian supporters of Israel both. It may even create a bond of principle between the Pakistanis and the Israelis.
It is a much needed perspective to have today. Before we go fight someone else’s war, we should introspect inward on our own people.
Divergence from this parallel — a post Credit
While it may sound good on paper to say “Israel is Pakistan, Palestine is India” there are some state morals that diverge with the two countries.
For example, the population of Jews in Palestine and the surrounding Arab countries has exponentially declined. Meanwhile, the Muslim population within India has rapidly increased and even overtaken Pakistan today.
The same goes for Israel. 18% of Israel is Muslim, a demographic that has gone up in Israel since its creation. Meanwhile, the genocide of Hindus is well documented but rarely reported, by many outlets such as “Hindu Organization of Sindh” (https://www.instagram.com/hindusorganizationofsindh/) in Pakistan. Such statistics make us question the principles of these two stolen lands in and of themselves; which ones are moderates and which are radical? Which are truly indigenous and which are Abrahamic?
There is also a variance in brutality of response. While Israel has always been hard handed, then given goodwill as a “Step 2", Bharat has had a variance of response, with some governments going for a soft response while other governments going for a hard response.
While Bharat’s soft approach has been a criticizing point for Bharatian history since the time of Ghaznavi (who was spared 17 times), the question of achieving a more peaceful world does come into question — one that must be answered before a nuclear war breaks out. What is common between the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Pakistanis, which doesn’t apply to Bharat? The answer is “Abrahamic Faiths”.
It is also a fact that Islam is also an Abrahamic faith, and hence a Jewish one. It has core roots in Judaism. It is not a stretch to call every Muslim a “Jew” from an Indic perspective, as to us those religions are as similar as Shaktism is to Sikhism, or Buddhism is to Vedicism, or any one Bharatian religion is to the other.
The “Jew-ness” of Islam cannot be denied by the layman.
Closing Remarks — Getting Over Ethnic Differences
Many famous thinkers of the WW2 era, like George Orwell, talked about how Monotheims was used to narrow the scope of ideals of the average human, to strengthen the King’s control on his people’s minds by their limited range of thought.
This sort of Monotheism is getting outdated in 2023 in the age of the internet, where a person could download a hundred perspectives from the internet in a second.
Every person is a writer with the internet . We can all share our thoughts with the world thanks to the digital space.
Pluralist thought is only facilitated by this aspect of the internet and has a potential to bring pluralism and polytheism back globally. Changing our faith and OET systems towards a pluralist orientation can only help us rapidly move towards peace and unity globally while still celebrating the global diversity of all cultures. Will it end all wars? No. But will it make us move at least one step against peace, against righting historical wrongs of the last 2500 years? Yes.
With that in mind: The ancient religion of the Jewish and the “Palestinian” people is the “Canaanite” religion. The Canaanite religion is unlike both Judaism and Islam, and is a polytheistic non-Abrahamic religion which incorporates many people with different views and belief systems.
While the Zionist movement gave birth to several types of movements and ideals, one often forgotten is the Hebrew Youth Movement which promulgated Canaanism as the religion of Israel. The rebellious group was more influential in the arts, but the philosophy and morality of the Canaanite people should be studied in the height of this conflict as a means to achieve unity.
May the Levantese people be surprised, their Latter Day Faiths may have a lot of things in common with this ancient religion, but without the burden of Abrahan. Both their religions owe their origin point to the Canaanite faith. It is their eternal religion.
And if one truly hates the Jews or hates the Israelis or even their actions in a state-on-state war, they should definitely consider leaving Islam and reverting to their indigenous, eternal faiths.
