For months now, newsrooms and magazines have been abuzz with varying degrees of shock, surprise and consternation about India’s position on various aspects of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
The Anglosphere impressed upon Indian counterparts in various ministries the seriousness of the situation from their perspective, even while Indian Prime Minister called the presidents of both Ukraine and Russia to discuss diplomacy and de-escalation. Even as countries across the world signalled their non-interference in a major European war, a hawkish US led several European countries in issuing threats of sanctions, confused commentary and reams of op-eds about India’s commitment to a “values-based” relationship.
“Values” for Europe have changed every few months with climate conscious changes being a blatant example as European nations rush to cut trees by the millions to install windmills, and go back to coal to keep away from Russian gas. This necessitates a clear-eyed view of interests in negotiating common grounds for partnership.
While India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar’s standing ground with consistent positions has made for interesting dissection in international magazines, his words that state India stands on its own side do not seem to go down easily in the crowds he addresses.
For most western commentators, the recognition of countries, especially in the Global South, pursuing sovereign decision-making to uphold national interest, while also remaining principled about non-interference in domestic policies of other nations requires a paradigm shift.
The last decades have seen the complacent acceptance of a bipolar global order followed by the unipolar hegemony of the US after the fall of the Soviet Union. The rise of China has caused obvious insecurity, but the spectre of Putin’s Russia being the one worthwhile competitor to US hegemony loomed large over US policymakers.
As Ukraine found itself destabilized in a coup that installed a puppet president whose legacy has so far meant the mainstreaming of both corruption and Nazism despite his own Jewish heritage, Russia’s actions at its border has pulled the world towards a major war at an unprecedented rate.
As a historically non-aligned nation with strategic interests with Russia in defence and technology, and an energy-dependent developing country, India’s interests ranking paramount in the minds of their own establishment breeds consternation.
With repetitive and sometimes racially demeaning calls to “stop aid”, to sanction an apparent strategic partner and confused messaging across NATO nations, the Russia-Ukraine war brought out the fissures in international relations with India.
While the poverty of millions of Indian citizens has made for fodder for collecting aid for international NGOs and for magazine covers and million-dollar movies, their plight in case of rapid inflation as the rest of the word has seen due to misshapen economic policies is forgotten in the face of more selfish interests. India’s buying of Russian gas at steep discounts has been a contributing factor in the continuing economic stability the country enjoys in the face of massive supply chain disruptions that are ongoing.
It is in this context that India’s repackaging of non-alignment as its pursuit of strategic autonomy deserves a thorough study. A comparison also with countries who have chosen to be submissive allies or belligerent bullies at their borders show that such a position is only natural for a previously colonized nation which seeks to have a seat at the global stage.
Perhaps it is this single ambition of a non-European nation or ally that prevents the paradigm shift that would enable countries to respect an independent worldview suited to national interest and global stability. Either way, countries are cautiously accepting that while they do not understand the India position and lump it with “standing with Russia”, they grudgingly accept it.
In recent times, India has refused to join RCEP, opted out from joining the trade pillar of IPEF, has abstained on China’s Uyghur Muslim issue at UNHRC and bypassed trade in dollars to barter with Indonesia and trade in local currency with other nations.
In return, Indian citizens have faced no volatility with regards to their energy needs, industrialisation continues to recover post-COVID despite increased imports from China, and indigenous manufacturing yields better dividends for India’s private sector. All in all, Indian citizens do not feel like they’ve received the short shrift.
Internationally, India’s principled stance with regards to China’s domestic policies, which has been decried domestically as well as globally, has exemplified the commitment to autonomy and non-interference. The framework of thought and discussion within which a country focuses on the needs of their own citizens is allowed at this time only to countries the Anglosphere. Undercurrents of such self-interest could be found in UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s rather racist rants against Indians, as well as the US’s pursuit of oil deals with Venezuela in the midst of war.
As India’s economic growth and independent stance takes it steadily forward, global institutions that once ignored the global south will be forced to consider some countries and their national interests with more seriousness. As such, the shift of foreign policy from being intangibly “values-based” to becoming clearly interest-based would allow more room for discussions involving data and extrapolation into ways forward together, for countries that join India at the negotiating table.
The transactional aspect that accompanies government-to-government interactions is not divorced from the warmth of a genuine relationship between nations as highlighted by the late former Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s public friendship. As Japan pursued increased business interests in India under their leadership, the two leaders expanded upon cultural synergies within the two Asian powers.
Autonomy is akin to sovereignty and a principled and strong India can contribute significantly on the global front while guaranteeing that domestic concerns abate. Strategic partnerships with countries willing to stand by an independent India have been valued for decades. If values of such countries are actually liberal, they must be liberal enough to accept the sovereign functioning of participants in a multipolar world order.
The “right side of history” is written by victors employing brute force. A truer victory would lie in pursuing peace and economic stability, ideals towards which India has contributed consistently. It may just be time to consider that bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war will never be India’s goal when pursuing partnerships, and strategic autonomy will ensure that India continues to stand for peace.
Sagorika Sinha is a columnist and podcaster with Masters in Biotechnology from the University of Bath. Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest Opinion News and Breaking News here
Comments
0 comment