The Embassy of the State of Palestine to India has questioned the description of the 1918 Battle of Haifa as the “liberation of Haifa”, saying that Indian soldiers who participated in the battle were serving under British command as part of an imperial military campaign that resulted in the occupation of Palestine.
In a five-page position paper titled “Rewriting of India–Palestine history: The battle of Haifa: liberation or occupation?”, the Palestinian Embassy said the terminology surrounding the battle required “careful and scholarly reflection” and argued that the event should be understood within the historical context of British military occupation of Palestine.
The Embassy said Palestine, including Haifa, was under Ottoman rule before 1918 and that British forces defeated the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, bringing Palestine under British occupation. Indian soldiers participated in the campaign as part of the British Indian Army, under British command.
It argued that describing them retrospectively as having “liberated Haifa” risked attributing to India a sovereign military decision that the country did not possess in 1918, when it was still under British rule.
The paper pointed to contemporary British terminology, saying military and parliamentary records referred to the operations in Palestine using terms such as “capture”, “take”, “fall” and “conquer”. It also noted that following the British military campaign, Palestine was administered under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until its replacement by a civil administration in July 1920.
The Embassy also cited India’s own historical records, including the 2014 publication Indian War Memorials Around the World, saying it does not describe the event as the “liberation of Haifa”.
According to the paper, the publication records that the “fortified town of Haifa fell to a cavalry charge by the Jodhpur Lancers” and that the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade “broke through and took the town”.
It also referred to the Teen Murti Memorial in New Delhi, stating that the memorial was established during British colonial rule to commemorate Indian soldiers who served and died during the First World War, and was not originally intended to commemorate relations between India and Israel.
The Embassy said the memorial refers to “Palestine and some of its cities” among the places associated with the military campaigns in which Indian soldiers served.
The paper further cited official Indian records to state that 491 Indian soldiers are recorded at Ramleh War Cemetery, 109 at the Gaza and Deir el Balah War Cemeteries and 47 at the Haifa Indian Cemetery, besides soldiers commemorated at other cemeteries and memorials across historical Palestine.
The Embassy questioned why Haifa had become the centre of a commemorative narrative when Indian soldiers had fought across a much wider region, including the Suez Canal, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, Damascus and Aleppo.
It also said the first formal Israeli public ceremony commemorating the Indian soldiers was held in 2010, nearly a century after the battle.
The paper argued that Britain, rather than India, was the principal military power behind the campaign, as it financed, armed and commanded the operation. It questioned why the “liberation of Haifa” narrative centred on Indian soldiers while Britain’s role was not similarly emphasised.
The Embassy also stressed that the soldiers described as “Indian soldiers” served in the British Indian Army and came from different regions, communities and religions across British India, whose geographical and political boundaries differed from those of the present-day Republic of India.
The position paper placed the soldiers’ participation within the wider history of British colonial rule, noting that Indian troops were deployed in military campaigns far from their homeland.
It also referred to the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, arguing that the broader record of British rule should be considered when interpreting the role of Indian soldiers in the First World War.
The Embassy cited Mahatma Gandhi’s opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of its indigenous population, including his statement that “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English.”
It further pointed out that India voted against UN Resolution 181 in 1947, which proposed partition and allocated Haifa to the proposed Jewish state, and questioned how the 1918 battle could subsequently be presented as a foundation for India-Israel historical ties.
The Embassy said describing the 1918 occupation of Haifa as a liberation “raises serious questions and concerns in Palestine”. It maintained that Haifa should be recognised as a Palestinian city at the time and that the battle took place in the context of the British military occupation of Palestine.
At the same time, the Embassy said its position was expressed with “full respect” for the sacrifice and memory of Indian soldiers and for India’s sovereign right to commemorate its history and fallen soldiers.
It called for historical remembrance of the Battle of Haifa to remain grounded in accuracy, balance and respect for the historical experiences of all concerned, while emphasising that the document represented the Palestinian Embassy’s perspective and was intended to contribute to discussion on the historical and legal questions surrounding the battle.
