Now Reading
India’s Stance on Russian Invasion of Ukraine is Understandable But Still Exceptionable

India’s Stance on Russian Invasion of Ukraine is Understandable But Still Exceptionable

  • By abstaining on the UN Security Council resolution condemning Moscow’s reprehensible aggression, New Delhi may have alienated the U.S., Europe and other allies in one go.

President Barack Obama once described India-US ties as one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. That relationship unexpectedly got into choppy waters this week after India got a couple of reminders from the United States on its position about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and how it should vote on the draft UN Security Council resolution – which India ultimately abstained on, along with China and the UAE.

First, Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that he had spoken to External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar – and indicated the “importance of a strong collective response to Russian aggression.” Blinken effectively drafted lines that the MEA was struggling to compose suggesting that “Russia’s attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is a clear violation of the rules-based international order.” President Joe Biden mentioned in a press conference that the issue of being fully in sync with India on the issue wasn’t resolved completely. Then U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said this while introducing the resolution: “vote yes if you believe in upholding the UN Charter … Vote no or abstain if you do not uphold the Charter.”

India has drawn closer to the West in recent decades but has its own compulsions when it comes to Russia. Thousands of Indian students are stranded in Ukraine who need Russian help to get out; Russia is India’s biggest weapons supplier and Moscow provides cover for the country at the UN whenever Pakistan or China raises the Kashmir issue there.

There are other reasons driving India’s policy. One is the belief that there is no real price to pay for sitting on the fence on Russia – the West, after all, needs India in many respects. Global corporations want to sell products and services in India, it is a big market for weapon manufacturers and India ticks a lot of boxes for the Pentagon looking for international partners to contain China. The Narendra Modi government expects elites in Washington to understand Delhi’s calculus and the tradeoffs it is confronted with.

There’s also the hypocrisy argument — analysts argue that the U.S. has not been the paragon of consistency in implementing democratic values abroad having backed coups against legitimate regimes and invaded countries on false pretexts (Iraq). Jaishankar himself made this case whilst answering a question at the Munich Security Conference. When asked why India was abstaining on Ukraine when it was so outspoken on Chinese incursions in India, he said both situations are not the same and pointed out that the European powers had not taken strong positions on the Indo-Pacific issues after 2009. He also pointed out that if Europeans were serious about principles they would have practiced those in Asia and Afghanistan.

Everyone, Blinken included, understands that states look out for their own interests. Except that this conflict is different. The present juncture in world politics is different as are American motivations and anxieties. 

Analytically, all this makes sense. Everyone, Blinken included, understands that states look out for their own interests. Except that this conflict is different. The present juncture in world politics is different as are American motivations and anxieties. India’s abstention is a misjudgment of context, even as it makes sense in terms of national interest. The Indian government has perhaps not appreciated that the U.S., particularly the Democrats and the Biden Administration, don’t see Russia merely as an adversary pursuing narrowly-defined security interests in Europe but as a power keen on undermining Western democracies. It is in this context that India’s fence-sitting comes out poorly.

Russia has loomed large in the American political imagination since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, following allegations of interference through disinformation campaigns and email hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The Robert Mueller report did not establish a conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign but said that the Putin regime worked to secure a Trump victory – and stated in its opening that “the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion.” Fiona Hill, a Russia expert, has written that the idea that Moscow determined the election “is overstated”; she underlined that Putin merely exploited America’s deep polarization.

That said, the events of January 6, the role that disinformation played in fomenting it, the ongoing Republican measures to suppress the African American vote and the chaos that may follow the 2024 election if Trump were to claim victory again – all these make Democrats and the Biden administration particularly wary of what Putin will attempt in 2024. In a recent conversation with historian Timothy Snyder, David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, spoke of the possibility that Putin would like to see the United States experienced its own December 25, 1991 – the day the Soviet Union ended – sometime between November 2024 and January 2025.

See Also

The result of all this is that the Biden administration cannot at this moment separate American national interests from its own domestic survival while it contends with Russia. There is a reason why Biden has characterized the current state of world politics as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. India can thus offer all sound reasons for refusing to condemn Russia, but it will not be able to mollify Democrats who are threatened by Moscow’s shenanigans.

India’s vote on Ukraine thus becomes a sensibility-shifting moment for Washington and European allies, at least during Biden’s term. Its abstention will have demonstrated to Western policymakers that India will be agnostic when push comes to shove. How this will play out in substantive terms remains to be seen but there will likely be a chilling of personal equations and an adjustment among partners on what to expect from India in the future, even amid the feel-good rhetoric of the Quad and shared perspectives on China.

This is not a great moment for Modi given his already flagging reputation. Western leaders can now juxtapose his well-known illiberal governance at home with the refusal to name Russia, let alone condemn it. They will instinctively sense that Modi will be at ease in a world run by Trump, Putin and even Xi Jinping (should the border issue be solved).

Sushil Aaron, Ph.D., is a commentator on India’s politics and international affairs. Twitter: @SushilAaron

What's Your Reaction?
In Love
Not Sure
View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

© 2020 American Kahani LLC. All rights reserved.

The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of American Kahani.
Scroll To Top