Interpreting India's stance
DEFENCE Minister Rajnath Singh on Thursday released Heroes of 1971, a compilation of articles on the Bangladesh liberation war that were serialised by The Tribune. The 1971 war was an epochal moment that redrew the global map, and created a thriving new country; and India ought to be justifiably proud of its role in the most successful humanitarian intervention in the post-World War II history. The Tribune’s celebration of the 1971 war victory was a reflection of the national spirit because, in cricketing terms, it was a 1983 moment, when India led by Indira Gandhi came into its own as a regional power capable of shaping its destiny after centuries of devastation caused by colonial rule.
If Indians care for their ties with Russia, it is only because of what it does for India now, not what it did in 1971.
But is Indian diplomacy captive to its memories of the 1971 war? Is Indian opinion or its commentariat beholden to Russia for Soviet Union’s boundless help during its worst crisis? Is the Indian response to the Russia-Ukraine war determined by a 50-year-old commitment? Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director of ORF America, an overseas affiliate of the Observer Research Foundation, kicked up a Twitter storm a few days ago over the 1971 references by western commentators when he called out the patronising, racist attack against the Indian position. While the External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s son touched a raw western nerve, he struck a chord closer home, for no analysis can be more fallacious or preposterous than the simplistic explanation of the Indian stand on Ukraine. Indians are indeed a sentimental and grateful lot, but the inherent contradiction in the Indian behaviour always is its overriding pragmatism bordering on opportunism.
If Indians care for their relationship with Russia, it is only because of what Russia does for India now — not what it did in 1971 — and that is quite a lot. India’s near-total dependence on Russia for its weaponry or its space programme is not something that can be wished away. Also, now India is an exporter of BrahMos missiles that Russia helped India develop. India’s sale of BrahMos missiles to Philippines is a defining moment in the country’s post-Independence history. While the Defence Research and Development Organisation can be legitimately proud of its achievement, the external affairs ministry and the Indian envoy to the Philippines, Shambhu Kumaran, deserve to be specially lauded. After all, a nation that cannot make even the most basic telecom equipment, be they mobile phones or wifi dongles, will export missiles, thanks to Russia.
Thirty years of India’s dalliance with the US — beginning with the Narasimha Rao-Pranab Mukherjee combine tying India to the apron strings of the World Trade Organisation — reduced the country to a mega market for goods made in China, produced with American technology. While Japan, South Korea and China greatly benefited from American technology and investment, Indian politicians talked endlessly about globalisation, turning the country into a net buyer of essential medicines, electronic goods and telecom equipment from China. Despite India’s determined stand on the Line of Control, Indian industry will come to a standstill if China stops its telecom and electronic goods and active pharma ingredients.
Now, even after the rise of China and its intent to threaten the US’ unipolar status, there is no US attempt to increase its investments and technology transfer to India. The US diplomats seem to be still carrying the British lenses to look at India as a market and a potential repository of military manpower. The American CEOs of Indian origin remind one of the Rai Bahadurs and OBEs of the colonial era who could neither assist the colonial administration perpetuate its oppression nor help the nation prosper. As the global order changes, the worldview that designated China as the global manufacturing hub and India as a backward market needs to also change in the interest of democracy and a rules-based world society. The continued dependence of India on China for hi-tech gadgets will only strengthen the latter as the primary Asian power. And that will prompt China to flex its muscles in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere, threatening US interests.
India’s national interests that determine its position on Ukraine are not limited to arms imports from Russia — they include its grave concern of a possible China-Pakistan-Russia axis that can cripple and corner India militarily and economically. India’s relationship with Russia is the only strategic deterrent against China’s complete dominance of the region and it baffles one why the West refuses to see it. Then, by setting up AUKUS, an Anglo-Saxon ‘white boys’ club’ to counter China, the US has effectively undermined India’s importance in the region, thus leaving India to fend for itself; how to do it without Russian support is a question that begs an answer.
As a thriving democracy, Indians have a great affinity towards the US and want it to help them rise as a regional power. But instead of chips and codes, what they get are columns in Washington newspapers to abuse themselves. While remaining a swing state with multiple allies is the sole strategic option for India — surrounded as it is by inimical powers — it can only rely on the US for cutting-edge technology that can stop its dependence on Chinese imports. India’s vast reserve of manpower and buying power can trigger another boom in the US economy if it decides to drastically alter the supply chains and make India the manufacturing source and not a marketing destination. It may sound audacious, but sooner rather than later, India will be forced to replace its Korean car and white goods manufacturers with its own brands; it will be easier and mutually beneficial if it happens with American technology, investment and handholding. In India’s quest for a genuine American alliance and mutually beneficial relationship, the memories of 1971 are insignificant. If at all, they only serve to remind the western media about how it did not report on a genocide of three million people, while it now talks big about Ukraine.
