India is not Ukraine

Rajesh Ramachandran

INDIA’S most important Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, after the grand success of his 3,500-km Bharat Jodo Yatra, is now in the UK, drumming up support from the West for his attempt to bring the Narendra Modi government down next year. It is always important to have supporters at home and abroad, as PM Modi would endorse. He went out of his way to campaign for Donald Trump in the last US presidential elections, cutting a sorry figure and inviting the Democrats’ wrath, which may or may not have led to the Hindenburg-Soros episode. But Rahul’s statement comparing India with Ukraine was surprising, to say the least. Tricky foreign policy issues are best avoided on foreign soil, particularly when at stake is the core philosophy of the Indian approach to international conflicts.

Tricky foreign policy issues are best avoided on foreign soil, particularly when at stake is the core philosophy of the Indian approach to international conflicts.

In a flippant statement, Rahul crossed the non-alignment line drawn by his brilliant great-grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru and threw away the shining legacy of his grandmother Indira Gandhi. Rahul compared India with Ukraine and Russia with China, labelling Russia the villainous aggressor, thereby simplistically crossing over to one side of the Russia-NATO conflict. Every keen observer knows that the Ukraine-Russia conflict is a proxy war between Russia and the West, led by the US and the UK. Talking in the UK, Rahul claimed that just as China had violated the Line of Actual Control (LAC), Russia had invaded Ukraine and hence both were similar situations and, worse, the trigger was the Ukrainian and Indian proximity to the US. It was indeed a jaw-dropping statement, particularly from someone from the Nehru-Gandhi family.

If a parallel had to be drawn between the LAC situation and the Russia-Ukraine conflict — which itself is absurd because no two geopolitical situations are ever the same — the closest would have been to talk about the West supporting Pakistan in its genocidal barbarism in 1971, with China offering moral support and the US sending its USS Enterprise to threaten India. The US, China and Pakistan were together and India fought for its survival and created a new nation, which is a thriving testimony to how wrong the Western opinion was 50 years ago and how correct was Indira Gandhi’s decision to not kowtow to the West. A comparison could also be made with Pakistan offering a slice of the occupied territory in J&K to China to encircle India from the North, East and West. That would be like the present-day NATO expansionism threatening the very existence of Russia.

Comparisons are always odious; it is best for guest speakers not to offer simple A-is-equal-to-B formulas to please the hosts. India’s unsettled borders, be they with China or Pakistan, are a Nehruvian legacy. The pragmatism and the sensitivity that the Nehru government lacked in negotiating a border settlement with China and the lack of military preparedness or strategic vision led to the 1962 debacle. That is something successive Indian governments have not been able to live down. Any concession to China will be termed a sellout by the Opposition — Congress or BJP — thereby making it difficult to achieve a breakthrough in border talks. Even if the Opposition agrees, the West would not want a settlement as that would throw a spanner in its Quad works and spoil the plans to project India to contain China.

Meanwhile, India’s dependence on China grows, with a burgeoning trade imbalance which, again, is a Congress-era legacy. About 30 years ago, the buzzword was globalisation, with China being promoted by the West as the world’s manufacturing hub and India under Narasimha Rao being forced to dismantle its nebulous manufacturing capabilities and opening up its markets to cheap Chinese imports. India now imports Chinese goods worth $118.5 billion annually and has a trade deficit breaching the $100 billion-mark. Over the last one year, imports have grown by 21.7% and exports declined by 37.9%. Ukraine is not dependent on Russia for its wi-fi dongles, mobile phones, TV screens, washing machines, nail clippers, hotwater bags, active pharmaceutical ingredients, Diwali lights and Sankranti kite threads.

The comparison gets worse when we put the Russia-Ukraine war in the Soviet-era perspective. After all, it is a former Soviet republic whose new leadership has moved towards the West, seeking to destabilise Russia to probably trigger a regime change there. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has even passed a law making it seditious for Ukraine to negotiate with Russia under Putin. Sure, India is not Ukraine. Rahul’s statement is cruelly oblivious of the Indo-Soviet treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation that allowed Indira Gandhi to reclaim Indian confidence and establish it as a credible regional power. Russia is the legatee of Soviet power and it has stood with India all along, even now arming it with the best of military, nuclear and space technology. If Rahul comes to power, will he reject Russian hardware, technical knowhow and friendship? Instead of toeing the Western line, he should have pointed out the solidity of the Nehruvian foundation to India’s non-alignment policy during great power conflicts, which even Modi is now forced to follow.

India’s interests do not lie in any mercenary role of containing China, but in ensuring peaceful coexistence. In that sense, the latest US intel report of the likelihood of a muscular response to China and Pakistan by Modi’s government has to be rejected like many other US predictions and prescriptions that do not cure the Indian malaise of lack of economic growth (don’t forget the globalisation prescription of the 1990s). Instead, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s offer of greater dynamism in the Russia-India-China trilateral holds promise. While analysing the India-China conundrum, we often fail to look at the civilisational truth about India-China ties. India was also attacked from the West and nearly never from the East; instead, the East has with open arms accepted Indian thought and traditions, particularly Buddhism — the philosophy of peace.