Ukraine and the anatomy of India’s neutrality 

News: Recently, India has chosen a non-condemnatory approach and abstention approach in the United Nations (UNs) forum on the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

India’s stand has pushed India at the centre of the debate in the international community. 

What has been the nature of India’s foreign policy?

In 1957, Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru advocated a foreign policy guided by a non-condemnatory approach. India more or less followed the same line in the Soviet interventions in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) or Afghanistan (1979), or the American invasion of Iraq (2003)  

In fact, India also condemned the civilian killings in Ukraine without calling any names.

Why do the western countries want India to embrace the anti-Russian stand? 

(1) From a political point of view: The U.S. considers the assault on Ukraine as an assault on “the free world”. Therefore, its narrative would look weak if the world’s largest democracy (India) does not take the side of the West.  

(2) From an economic point of view: The sanctions imposed by the US on Russia would not work if India continues to trade with Russia. Importantly, China, the world’s second largest economy, refuses to abide by the American sanctions. Further, the adherence of Japan, South Korea and Singapore, the only three Asian nations which have backed the sanctions, would not be strong enough to deter Russia. 

(3) From a strategic point of view: US sees India as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific region. Therefore, it wants India to choose sides. 

How the global order has changed?

Since the last two decades, the global order is witnessing rapid changes. There seems to be three great powers (the US, Russia and China) and several middle powers.

The US is an existing power, Russia is a wounded bear with an imperial nostalgia. It is economically weak but in terms of land mass and military might, it remains a superpower, and China is rising fast and seek to displace the American order at the global level.  

India is itself a middle power. In the present conflict, two out of three global powers are India’s partners and one is a competitor. Therefore, it is not wise for India to take side. Taking sides with one partner, would make China (India’s competitor) stronger.  

Why India’s present foreign policy is right? 

It seems India is being selectively targeted. India’s position is not isolated.

– For example, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, a close American ally, abstained from a vote in the UN Security Council. In fact, Israel, and Turkey, both refused to join the sanctions regime.  

The foreign policy of a country does not depend upon the moral commitments. It is based on its national interests. For example, The U.S.-led NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, invaded Iraq in 2003, and destroyed the state of Libya while pursuing its national interest, rather than moral commitments.  

India’s national interests lies in non-alignment. In addition to defence and energy security, India wants Russia for continental security (geopolitical reasons), especially after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan. On the contrary, India wants the U.S., Japan and Australia for India’s maritime security.  

India is not a client state of any great power. In fact, the client states of the West have not joined the sanctions regime.  

India is not an ally of the US. For example, the Quad (India, Australia, Japan and the U.S.) is not an alliance.  

India’s core national interests need pragmatic realism. The strategic autonomy keeps channels open with both sides. It serves our national interests.  

Source: The post is based on an article “Ukraine and the anatomy of India’s neutrality” published in The Hindu on 8th Apr 22.