Russia Bear-Hugs India
By D.K.Giri
(Prof. International Politics JIMMC)
After 12 occasions inthe UN on the ongoing Russian-Ukraine war, India has been abstaining from voting on the resolutions critical of Moscow’s action. India’s stance on the war has raised concerns about India’s foreignpolicy, which continues to be driven by the principle of non-alignment or strategic autonomy, also by India’s obligatoryreciprocity to the Russia/Soviet Union support. Indian diplomats contend, “Russia has been our steady supporter on our national security concerns, particularly with regard to Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, it is important for us also to be similarly sensitive to Russian military concerns.
It is time we analyse India’s current foreign policy positions and postures, as well as its long-standing friendship with Russia, the biggest part of the former Soviet Union. Analysts and observers suggest that India is drawing on the principle of non-alignment. But that concept is dead and buried fathomless deep since New Delhi signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation in August 1971.
Even if we accept that non-alignment is still the guiding principle, how is New Delhi non-aligned in this war! The warring countries are Russia and Ukraine, the former being the aggressor. Is New Delhi non-aligned between the two countries at war? New Delhi has been supporting Russia. It has refused to name Russia in any of the statements made on the war. It has not joined others in sanctioning Russia. On the contrary, it has upped the trade with Russia; has bought more Russian oil at discount than it did in the entire year of 2021; and is increasing the coal import.
If we extend the warring parties in pragmatism, not just in technical terms, it is a war between Russia on the one side and the United States and its allies on the other. Ukraine has been, deliberately, or fortuitously, a victim and the theatre of the decades-old rivalry between these two countries. In such a scenario, India appears to be non-aligned, or to put it more accurately, India is engaging with both countries or blocks quite deftly ‘in keeping with her national interest’. This is a clearer and fairer interpretation of India’s stand on the war. But such a position is deeply debatable which is what we should engage in.
Agree that Russia, rather its former self, the Soviet Union, has been a friend and ally of India. Its support in 1971 war with Pakistan on Bangladesh should be gratefully remembered. Soviet Union’s consistent support in the UN Security Council in form of its veto on the question of Jammu and Kashmir has saved India from a good deal of embarrassment and practical difficulties. Even in current times, Russia has helped, in the background, not openly in India-China border disputes.
Russia has brought India into regional grouping with China –BRICS, RIC and SCO. Some observers would argue that Russia did so to counter the Chinese dominance in the region. China has roped in Pakistan to counter India. So, Russia making India sleep with her enemies is no big deal. It is not reducing China’s incredible and controversial claims on Indian territory, its questionable actions on the borders.
India perhaps calculates that Russia will be a greater support in its conflicts with China and Pakistan than the United States. And the US will have to ally with India in its hegemonic competition with China in the India-Pacific region. So why alienate Russia! The point to consider and debate is whether India’s dependence on Russia was inevitable and indispensable.
Also, if India’s foreign policy, driven by non-alignment and security concerns alone has helped India’s growth and development, has it not cost India heavily on defencepurchases? Calculate the cost of lack of investmenton various sectors of its economy and society. Soviet Union and Russia have been military powers not economic powers.
Look at China, even being anauthoritariancommunist state, it did brisk business with all the big economies in the West, the US, its allies, the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, using its strict labour laws and demographic strength. Today, with its huge economy, marginally less than that of US alone, Beijing can stand up to any big power including the US. New Delhi, tied to its security compulsions, and the unworkable strategy of non-alignment, spent its scarce resources, meagre foreign currency reserves in buying weapons, the biggest bulk of it from one country, Soviet Union/Russia.
India thankfully made course correction after 1991 by opening up to the West, causing improvement in her economy. But this happened not because of India’s strategic shift, but due to rethinking in the West in regard to China. As Beijing became ambitious and began to challenge its benefactors, the West turned to India, biggest democracy, huge market and enormous (wo)man-power. As they began to court India, New Delhi in its ‘strategic autonomy” and security trap, has not been responding to such overtures, inflicting heavy costs to her economy and even to polity.
Elaborating the costs, India is suffering from its muddled up non-alignment, let us scan four major sectors — political, economy, security and social. India is known for her democracy, the only Asian country sustaining it despite several challenges. India is also known for its political principles of equality, liberty, harmony, co-existence, non-aggression, a culture of synthesis. Russia has been a communist, one-party, one-leader autocratic country. So,India does not inspire others by standing withsuch a regime.
In economic growth, Soviet Union/Russia has drained India by all the defence deals, not helped her economy. Manohar Lal Sondhi, a diplomat and academic brought it up long back in his bookNon-Appeasement: A News Direction in India’s Foreign Policy. There are several other studies to show the avoidable drain of India’s resources through her defence purchases from the SovietUnion/Russia.
Third, the equally important sector is security. Admittedly, Soviet Union has stood by India in 1971 and then in the UN. But did India not impose this security risk on itself. Why did Jawahar Lal Nehru not allow the Army to clear Kashmir of Pakistan army-backed tribal trespassers? Why did he go to the UN when India had the right to take whole of Kashmir? By doing so, he mortgaged India to Soviet Union for their veto? Well, that is a subject of another debate. Also, his impracticable concept on non-alignment, aversion for the West, put an unbearable burden on India’s economy.
The fourth sector is social. Indian politics and society tend to relate to the West in terms of rationality, liberalism, progressivism, tolerance and respect for dissent. India has hardly anything in common with Russian social and political values which are largely feudal and anti-dissent. Note thepoisoning in 2020 of Alexei Navalny, the Russian dissenter and anti-corruptionactivist. Moreover, a vast majority of our students go to the West for education and training, a few to Russia.
Is it not the time for New Delhi to rethink, reset its foreign policy and redetermine its nationalinterest? Prime Minister Modi was expected to correct the historic fault lines created by Nehru. He and his party rightly point them out. But he is falling into the same trap and not being able to extricate from the Russian bear-hug. Strange indeed for a strongman like him!He may just have to take out his hat of the path-breakerpolitical innovator, like he did in Jammu and Kashmir and Israel-Palestine relations. He does it rather fast before it gets worse. The war in Ukraine will not end soon. The West will make it another Afghanistan for Russia. — INFA