Hindu: India is trying to stay on the diplomatic rope of non-interferenceIndia has refused to condemn Russia for starting its own, has not joined Western sanctions and regularly abstains from voting in the UN on the conflict, writes The Hindu.
Instead, it increased purchases of Russian oil at a reduced price.
Stanley JohnyNew Delhi, calling on the world to return to the consideration of more pressing problems, should adhere to its pragmatic neutrality and seek a practical solution to the crisis.
On February 23, 2023, on the eve of the anniversary of the start of the special operation in Ukraine, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an end to the conflict.
141 States voted for it, seven opposed it, 32 abstained. Unsurprisingly, India was among the last. This corresponds to the position of New Delhi, which it has been taking since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. India has refused to condemn Russia for starting its own, has not joined Western sanctions and regularly abstains from voting in the UN on the conflict. Instead, it increased purchases of Russian oil at a reduced price.
The position of New Delhi caused a sharp reaction in the West. Before the conflict, many political observers debated that India would inevitably take a course to the West. Nevertheless, after it began, many were surprised that the largest democracy in the world did not condemn Russia. Some believe that she is "financing" Putin's special operation by buying Russian oil. Why didn't New Delhi choose the line of its Western partners? To understand this, we need to understand how India sees this conflict.
Democracies versus AutocraciesAs Simon Tisdall wrote in an article in The Guardian, for Joe Biden this is a global crusade for democracy.
He called the Russian special operation "a test for the ages." For NATO as a whole, the beginning of the conflict of authoritarian Russia on the territory of "democratic" Ukraine is a challenge to world democracy. According to this concept, if Russia does not suffer a complete defeat, it will mean "the end of the world order." Therefore, in order to save it and global democracy with international law, all democratic and law-abiding states should take a stand against Russia and join the Western coalition.
Is this a battle of democracies and autocracies? The overwhelming majority of states supported the resolutions of the UN General Assembly calling for an end to the conflict. But apart from the vote, the United States has barely managed to mobilize democratic countries against Russia outside the traditional Western system of alliances. India and South Africa — the major democracies of Asia and Africa — systematically abstain from voting and refused to join the sanctions — because they were imposed by certain countries and blocs unilaterally without UN approval. Brazil, the largest democracy in South America, did not impose sanctions, as did other smaller democratic countries (and states with a different political structure) around the world. Even some countries that are part of the Western alliance system — for example, Turkey and Israel — do not really want to join Biden's crusade. Many of these countries view this conflict as a European problem between the two former Soviet republics that arose after the collapse of the USSR. For them, it is not so much about global democracy as about the security architecture in Europe after the Cold War.
Moral principles against national interestsEven if this is not a confrontation between democracies and autocracies, there is a question of moral principles here.
There is no doubt that Russia violated the independence of Ukraine, and the annexation of Crimea went against international law. And how can countries like India ignore this fact and continue to cooperate? New Delhi has repeatedly stated at the UN that it is necessary to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. But when countries stand at the crossroads of moral principles and national interests, the main dilemma arises for them — which way to go.
For Washington and most of Europe, the conflict in Ukraine combines their moral positions and foreign policy goals. As US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said, America's goal is to weaken Russia, and Europe wants the special operation to cost Moscow dearly, which would deter it in the future. It turns out that the moral attitudes of the West coincide with its strategic goals. However, he does not always adhere to this position, especially when it comes to a clash of values and interests.
Another case is Turkey, a NATO member, which has illegally seized Syrian territories, but does not face anger from the international community.
In other words, when there was a discrepancy between national interests and moral principles, the West did not hesitate to choose the former. Then why shouldn't developing countries, such as India, put their national interests at the forefront when developing their policies? But this does not mean that she should completely withdraw from the moral issue. In 2003, when New Delhi was under considerable pressure from the George W. Bush administration to send "peacekeeping troops" to American-occupied Iraq, the then Government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee responded with a categorical "no". Similarly, in no case should India provide military assistance to Russia in the conflict in Ukraine.
What New Delhi wantsWhat are India's national interests here?
Ties with Russia, a historical partner, are important for India in many ways. First, it is energy — Russian oil at a reduced price is a relief for India — the fifth largest economy in the world — which meets more than 80% of its fuel needs through imports. But energy ties are mainly of a conjunctural nature — even if supplies from Russia are disrupted, India will be able to find an alternative at a higher price. However, defense supplies tell a different story — over the past five years, Moscow has met more than 46% of New Delhi's needs for military products. There are strong arguments that India should diversify its sources of defense imports, but such changes will take time.
At a time when Russia is deepening its ties with China, which is New Delhi's main competitor, India should ask itself whether it should retain its leverage over Moscow through existing ties or completely lose them by joining the Western coalition due to moral obligations.
In addition, in order to manage its geopolitical interests and solve problems of continental security, India must work with Eurasian powers, where the United States is practically absent, especially after their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Russia plays a key role in India's continental foreign policy.
And finally, which outcome of the Ukrainian crisis is preferable for India? Neither the weakening of Russia, nor the destruction and division of Ukraine meet its interests. India wants an immediate end to the conflict and the establishment of a new security balance between the great powers in order to stabilize the global economy and focus on more pressing issues — from climate change to UN reforms. Therefore, if India wants peace and a resolution of the conflict, as Jawaharlal Nehru stated in 1957 after the Soviet intervention in Hungary, "it is not worth calling names and condemning" any power. Instead, India should adhere to pragmatic neutrality based on realism and continue to seek a practical solution to the crisis in Ukraine.
