Tightrope walk on Ukraine
text_fields
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Ukraine has been the subject of much publicized media coverage within India. His statements that he was proud to be a countryman of Gandhiji, that India stands for peace and that he was prepared to intervene to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine were perceived to have boosted India’s reputation globally. On the other hand, there has also been criticism that his trip was not such a success and nothing intended did emerge from it. Ukraine President Zelenskiy had publicly criticised Modi who went to Russia and hugged President Putin a month ago. Just before Modi met Putin, a children’s hospital in Ukraine had crashed in Russian bombing killing three children. Zelensky went to the extent of commenting that it was “a devastating blow to peace efforts to see the leader of the world’s largest democracy hug the world’s most bloody criminal in Moscow”.
Observers say that there was US pressure behind Modi's decision to visit Ukraine soon thereafter to balance the equilibrium. US National Security Advisor suggested that getting too close to Russia was not good for India. The US State Department spokesperson and the US Ambassador to India echoed the same tone. Ambassador Eric Garcetti even warned that India should not take friendship with the US for granted. Although India reacted aggressively to Zelensky’s comment, the hasty visit to .Ukraine following this is seen by observers as intended to please Ukraine and thereby to appease the US. When Modi was in Russia, it bombed a hospital in Ukraine. Zelensky said that Russia’s bombing of the hospital while Modi was in Russia was Russia’s insult to Modi.
As such, was it a message to Ukraine that Russia intensified its attack on Ukraine while Modi was in Ukraine? And Ukraine’s incursion to Russia just before Modi’s Ukraine visit can also be recalled. India once had followed a path of keeping aloof from international alliances and of following its own policies. However since rently, it has changed to an extent that it is no more wrong to reproach that the policy has become one of a balancing act of having no stances. The criticism is that Modi's visits to Russia and Ukraine did not bring any triumph for India. India relies on Russia for oil and arms. At the same time, America which frowns at India's dependence on Russia, is insistent that India’s foreign policy should be in line with its own. In the middle of this, it is doubtful if India is able to to take a stand in accordance with national interests.
Even when India procures oil at lower prices from embargo-ridden Russia, the benefit of low prices does not reach the people. When seeing the picture of Modi with arms around the shoulders of Zelensky for friendship with Ukraine, at least some ask in wonderment whether he forgot that the same Ukraine had supplied weapons to Pakistan during the Kargil war. It was also pointed out that the money given by India to Russia is used as weapons in Ukraine. And when he says that the money given by India to Russia for its oil was landing in Ukraine as arms, Zelensky does not remember either that his side was supporting Israel on another front in its genocide. Although India raised before Russia the issue of Indian citizens who were made part of the Russian forces in Russian-held parts of Ukraine, that was of no avail.
The recent shift of India from the earlier non-alignment to opportunistic pragmatism is eroding the credibility of India’s foreign policy. The earlier policy was one of principle-based neutrality; today's foreign relations turn out to be only for the purpose of facilitating the factors in favour of corporates. The inclination towards Iran and Russia is part of energy supply protection. But in terms of relations with the US and Israel, it is difficult to read any national interest in the blind subordination.
Another factor cited as a blot on our foreign policy is that we are not able to maintain the kind of friendship shown towards distant countries when it comes to neighbouring nations. When Sheikh Hasina was forced to flee Bangladesh, India got into in an unenviable compulsion to reluctantly protect her after having failed to gauge the popular sentiment in that country. The Sri Lankan professor who had to resign the post of professor from South Asian University for having included the words of Noam Chomsky critical of Modi in his thesis, is another symbol. At the same time, there are criticisms that India is not resisting encroachments by China. The core of India’s foreign policy was having a definite stance. What mars it currently is absence of a stance. This has to change.
