Round The World
New Delhi, 22 April
2022
RussiaBear-Hugs
India
CALCULATING
THE COSTS
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
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|