Rewriting of India-Palestine History: Is the Battle of Haifa an Act of Liberation or Occupation?

As India and Israel approach their annual commemoration of the Indian soldiers associated with the British occupation of Palestine, and of Haifa in particular, during the First World War, I have become increasingly concerned by Israel's attempts to reshape, distort and politicise the historical record of Palestine. This concern is particularly relevant given that these commemorations, in their present form and political context, began nearly a century after the battle itself.

Palestine and India share a long history of friendship, mutual respect and common values. It is in this spirit that we raise a matter of particular importance and sensitivity: Israel's characterisation of the British occupation of Palestine and the Palestinian city Haifa as its "liberation," and its attempts to embed this characterisation in Indian discourse as part of a "shared history" between the Republic of India and Israel, a state that would not come into existence until 30 years later.

Confronting this distortion is not a Palestinian responsibility alone. Accepting such a narrative would not only distort Palestinian history, but would also conflict with the historical and moral foundations of India's own struggle against British colonialism. Defending the historical truth of Haifa is therefore not a favour to Palestine; it is also a defense of India's own history and the legacy of those who struggled for its freedom.

Before 1918, Palestine, like the rest of the Levant, including Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, was under Ottoman rule. During the First World War, Britain defeated the Ottoman Empire, bringing Palestine under its occupation. Among the forces involved were soldiers from British India, alongside many thousands of troops drawn from across the Empire, including Africa.

There is also a fundamental question of sovereignty. The Republic of India was not an independent sovereign state in 1918, and its soldiers did not independently decide to invade Palestine, participate in the Battle of Haifa, and occupy it and its people. Indian soldiers fought as part of a British-led imperial military campaign, under British command and within the structures of the British Empire.

To retrospectively describe this as "Indian soldiers liberating Haifa" therefore risks attributing to India a sovereign political and military decision that it did not possess the authority to make at the time.

When British military and parliamentary sources describe the operations that culminated in the occupation of Palestine, they employ terms such as "capture," "take," "fall," and "conquer," rather than framing these events simply as the "liberation." 

Following the British military conquest of Palestine, the territory was administered under a military administration known as the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), until that military regime was replaced by a civil administration on July 1, 1920. The terminology itself is significant: Palestine was treated as enemy territory captured by Allied forces and placed under military occupation. This characterisation was also consistent with the contemporary law of armed conflict governing belligerent occupation, particularly the Hague Regulations of 1907.

The Israeli characterisation of the Battle of Haifa as the "liberation of Haifa" therefore raises a fundamental historical question: liberation from whom? The historical record does not establish Ottoman rule in Palestine as a foreign occupation from which Palestine was "liberated" in 1918. 

On the contrary, it was the British who described the territory they had conquered as occupied territory and subsequently administered it under the officially designated OETA.

Even if, for the sake of argument, Ottoman rule were characterised as an "occupation," this would imply that Palestinians regarded themselves as living under occupation and sought or requested external British intervention to "liberate" them. Such a claim finds no support in the British or Palestinian historical record.

Accepting Britain's occupation of Haifa as a "liberation" would also open the door to a broader re-characterisation of Britain's colonial role, including in India itself. The same British Empire cannot logically be characterised as a colonial power in India while being retrospectively transformed into a "liberation force" when its army entered Palestine. 

Indian soldiers fought across West Asia

Indian soldiers may rightly be honoured for their courage and sacrifice, but their individual bravery does not alter the political character or objectives of the imperial campaign in which they were deployed. 

By the same logic, British colonialism in India could be recast as a project of liberation or modernisation, while Indian resistance to it could be re-characterised as rebellion, ingratitude, or even terrorism. Changing the geography does not change the nature of the empire.

We are yet to find any evidence that India, either today or in the past, has considered Ottoman rule over Palestine and other parts of the region to have constituted an occupation. This raises another fundamental question: if India does not regard Palestine at the time as having been under Ottoman occupation, how can Indian soldiers be described as having "liberated" Haifa from that rule?

The terminology used in India's own historical record is equally significant. The 2014 official publication Indian War Memorials Around the World makes no reference to the "liberation of Haifa." Its exact wording states that "the fortified town of Haifa fell to a cavalry charge by the Jodhpur lancers” and elsewhere that the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade "Broke through and took the town." 

Likewise, anyone examining the inscriptions on the Teen Murti Memorial will find no reference to the "liberation of Haifa." Even the recently installed signage commemorating the renaming of the site contains no such terminology.

The Teen Murti Memorial in New Delhi was established under British colonial rule to commemorate the Indian soldiers who served and died during the First World War in various places across the region, including, but not limited to, Haifa. Its original purpose was to honour and preserve the memory of those Indian soldiers and their military service, not to commemorate or celebrate relations between India and Israel, a state that did not exist when the memorial was established.

Also read: Why Palestine Opposes 'Haifa Day' Celebrations – and Why Indians Should Care

If the military service of Indian soldiers in 1918 is invoked as evidence of a historical connection with the lands on which they fought, then that connection was with Palestine, not with a state established thirty years later. The Teen Murti Memorial itself provides enduring evidence of this historical reality: "Palestine and some of its cities" are inscribed among the places associated with the campaigns in which these Indian soldiers served. The memorial therefore preserves tangible historical evidence of an Indian connection with Palestine, not with Israel, which did not exist at the time.

Official Indian records show the scale of Indian sacrifice across Palestine during the First World War: 491 are recorded at Ramleh War Cemetery, 109 at the Gaza and Deir el Balah War Cemeteries, and 47 at the Haifa Indian Cemetery, with others recorded at additional cemeteries and memorials across historical Palestine. Yet Haifa has become the center of this commemorative narrative. If these soldiers are described as "liberators" from Ottoman rule, why should Haifa alone be singled out?

Indian soldiers fought across West Asia, as reflected on the Teen Murti Memorial, which lists the Suez Canal, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, Damascus, Aleppo and Haifa. Singling out Haifa as a "liberation" assigns to one campaign a meaning not attached to the others.

If Haifa is commemorated as a "liberation," should the other campaigns also be regarded as the "liberation" of territories in Egypt, Palestine, Syria and elsewhere? Such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with India's longstanding friendly relations with these countries and with their own historical understanding of that period.

If the presence and sacrifice of Indian soldiers in Haifa is sufficient to establish a special "shared history,” the same standard should surely apply to the rest of Palestine. Official Indian records indicate that hundreds of Indian soldiers are buried across historic Palestine, while more than 4,000 Indian soldiers "laid down their lives in this region." 

Elevating Haifa above these other engagements and reframing it to suggest a purported historical bond between India and Israel therefore risks becoming a desperate attempt by the Israeli side to court India through an artificial, exaggerated, and historically unjustified narrative, while diminishing the broader sacrifice of Indian soldiers across the region.

This selective emphasis on Haifa also appears to be relatively recent in Israel. For decades after the British occupation of Haifa, there was no formal Israeli public commemoration of the Indian soldiers. The first such ceremony was held in 2010, nearly a century after the battle itself.

Soldiers described by Israel today as 'Indian soldiers' served in the British Indian Army

If Britain's conquest of Palestine in 1918 is to be regarded as a "liberation," then Britain itself was the principal liberating power. Britain financed, armed and commanded the campaign, and British soldiers also lost their lives in it. Why, then, is the narrative of the "liberation of Haifa" centered on Indian soldiers serving under British command, while Britain's decisive role is absent from that narrative?

The contradiction becomes even more striking in light of subsequent Zionist history. Zionist terrorist armed organisations later fought the British Mandate in Palestine, regarding it as an occupation of the Land of Israel. They carried out numerous attacks against British forces and officials, and were themselves described by the British authorities as terrorist organisations, seeking to end the Mandate. The same British power that led the campaign in which Haifa was "liberated" was thus resisted as a foreign occupation by Zionist terrorist armed groups, while Indian soldiers serving within its forces are retrospectively celebrated as the "liberators" of Haifa.

It is worth remembering that the soldiers commonly described by Israel today as "Indian soldiers" served in the British Indian Army and came from different regions, communities and religions across the geography of British India, which differed from that of the present-day Republic of India. This distinction, in itself, raises further historical, legal and logical questions about how this legacy is interpreted and presented today.

Their service must also be understood within the colonial system in which it occurred. Britain conducted the First World War with the participation of hundreds of thousands of soldiers drawn from its colonies. While recruitment was formally presented as voluntary, it took place within a system in which political and economic power remained concentrated in British hands and in societies marked by limited opportunities and economic hardship.

Despite the enormous sacrifices made by Indian soldiers in Britain's war effort in the West Asia, Britain responded with the Rowlatt Act, which led only months later to the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. There is no logic in describing Britain, including the Indian cavalry serving under its command, as a force of "liberation" in Palestine while treating those same Indian soldiers as "liberators”.

The sacrifice of Indian soldiers should also be understood within the colonial system that deployed them in wars far from their homeland and which did not necessarily serve the interests or aspirations of their own people. Honouring their courage should therefore not obscure the injustice they themselves endured as subjects of colonial rule. 

As author and parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor has argued in his writings on the legacy of British colonialism, acknowledging historical injustice also raises important questions of recognition, apology and atonement for the human cost of colonial rule.

During the revolutionary period under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political leadership expressed clear opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of its indigenous population; a position reflected in Gandhi's well-known statement that "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English." 

Against this historical background, framing the Battle of Haifa as a "liberation" risks contradicting, or even undermining, the moral and political position articulated by Gandhi on Palestine.

There is also a later historical contradiction. Under UN Resolution 181, Haifa was allocated to the proposed Jewish state "Israel". India voted against that resolution. How, then, can India, having opposed the allocation of Haifa to a Jewish state "Israel" in 1947, now present the alleged "liberation" of Haifa by its own soldiers as a foundation for historical ties with Israel?

In the absence of any Palestinian request or authorisation for the British occupation, the narrative describing Britain's occupation of Haifa as a "liberation" warrants critical scrutiny. The role of Indian cavalry under British command in 1918 formed part of a broader imperial campaign that defeated Ottoman forces and paved the way for the British occupation of Palestine. This occurred less than a year after the Balfour Declaration and formed part of the historical sequence that led from British occupation to the Mandate and ultimately to the establishment of Israel and the Nakba of the Palestinian people.

If the role of Indian soldiers is retrospectively characterised as the "liberation of Haifa," it risks associating their role with this broader sequence of events and its political, moral and legal consequences; an association that deserves particularly careful consideration.

Changing realities on the ground cannot justify rewriting history. If time and political realities were enough to legitimise territorial change, the same principle would have to apply everywhere, including to Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, occupations, and territories claimed by one state but controlled by a neighbouring state. Facts on the ground do not rewrite historical facts.

In conclusion, it is both natural and legitimate that describing the occupation of Haifa in 1918 as a "liberation" raises serious questions and concerns in Palestine. A historically grounded and balanced reading should reflect Haifa's status at the time as a Palestinian city and recognise that these battles took place on Palestinian land within the context of the British military occupation of Palestine, rather than portraying them as an act of liberation for its people or as the basis for invented historical ties between Israel, the occupying power, and the Republic of India.

This position is expressed with full respect for the sacrifice and memory of Indian soldiers and for India's sovereign right to commemorate its history and its fallen soldiers. We respectfully invite careful and scholarly reflection on the terminology and narratives associated with the Battle of Haifa, so that historical remembrance remains grounded in accuracy, balance and respect for the historical experiences of all concerned.

We remain confident that dialogue grounded in scholarship, mutual respect and historical truth will honour the memory of those who lost their lives while reinforcing the shared commitment of our peoples to truth, dignity and justice.

Abdullah M. Abu Shawesh is the ambassador of the State of Palestine to the Republic of India.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.