NEW DELHI—India’s refusal to criticize Russia for its invasion of Ukraine has meant the country has had to walk a diplomatic tightrope balancing relations with its traditional partner Russia and its core partner in the Indo-Pacific, the United States.
The most important and immediate consequence of this diplomatic posture resulted in ensuring rescue efforts for some 20,000 stranded Indian students from Ukraine who experts said were at risk of being taken as hostages by militias that form part of the Ukrainian forces.
Early in February, when it became clear that Russia would invade Ukraine after the Beijing Winter Olympics, these militias, which are violently Russophobic, such as the Azov Battalion, often stopped non-whites who were not citizens of NATO member states from boarding buses and trains to safer destinations, said Madhav Nalapat, the Vice-Chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group.
According to Nalapat, the complicated situation on the ground in Ukraine was one of the main reasons causing India to find a diplomatic balance following President Vladamir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
“The largest number of foreign students in Ukrainian universities were from India, more than 20,000, so they were particularly affected,“ Nalapat said. ”Prime Minister Modi spoke to [Ukraine] President Zelensky about this, after first getting President Putin to agree to a limited cease-fire to enable trapped students to escape. Putin agreed to order such ceasefires at multiple times.”
This intense diplomatic engagement helped India rescue the last of its 600 stranded from the northeastern Ukrainian city of Sumy who flew back to the country on March 10. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar on Friday thanked Russia, Ukraine, Red Cross along with Ukraine’s neighboring countries, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Moldova for “exceptional support.”
Vishnu Prakash, a former Indian ambassador to Canada and South Korea told The Epoch Times that New Dehli’s rescue operation was a coordinated exercise involving the various military and civilian sectors across government.
The effort was led from the front by Modi who kept open communication with the heads of state in Russia and Ukraine, according to Prakash, who was an official spokesperson in a similar rescue operation of Indian people from Libya.
“And I must say that it was also India’s equity and standing with these countries that they cooperated. It was not a normal situation. Circumstances were very difficult. And it is almost a miracle that we could get everybody out,” he said, adding that India has a track record of getting its citizens “out of harm’s way” in times of foreign crisis.
India Abstains from Condemning Russia
India abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) draft resolution on Feb. 26 that condemned the Russian invasion and called for a withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine.New Dehli later abstained when the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to demand an immediate end to the attack on Ukraine.
Nalapat said what added urgency to India’s rescue operation was the death of one of its students who was denied permission by his university to leave.
“The university authorities threatened him with fee confiscation and erasure of his scholastic record, and this is why he was forced to stay for so long. More than 20,000 stayed because either the universities did not give permission or they believed the Ukrainian authorities that NATO would stop Russia from attacking,” said Nalapat.
India’s refusal to criticize Russia has disappointed many in the West, including U.S. lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who have called on India to distance itself from its major arms supplier Russia.
But New Dehli would have faced harsh blowback domestically if anything happened to its students in Ukraine.
“If a lot of students had died in the midst of bombing and shelling, public anger against Russia would have grown and instead of support, India’s impartial stand would have become unpopular at home,” said Nalapat.
Former diplomat Prakash believes that characterizations of India’s stance as neutral are incorrect, saying that the country has stakes on both sides.
“We have invested decades in a relationship with Russia, Russia’s relationship and [our relationship] with the U.S. is perhaps the most important one that we have today,” said Prakash.
“There’s no reason for us to condemn Russia publically. Whatever we need to say we can say privately, counsel, an opinion we can give privately,” he added.
Prakash also pointed to India’s public statements saying that international law should be respected, the human rights of Ukrainian people should be respected, those hostilities should cease and both countries should get back to the negotiating table.
He said India has its own language and the country need not be “sanctimonious and preachy.” He cited India’s positions on similar matters of conflict and said the country has had 45 rounds of talks with Pakistan between 1947 and 2017 and with China after the bloody Galwan conflict India had 15 rounds of talks already.
“This is the only way forward,” he said. “I hope that this madness comes to an end. It’s a man-made disaster which should have never happened.”
Yet India may face costs for continuing to hold its position as the West mounts an escalating sanctions campaign against Russia.
India’s 2018 purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system could invite sanctions under the U.S. Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which penalizes countries that sign defense deals with Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Before Russia’s invasion, there was speculation that India may be granted a waiver, but analysts have suggested that the issue could now be used as a bargaining chip between Washington and New Dehli.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Donald Lu said at a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on March 2 that the Biden administration is still considering whether to apply CAATSA against India.
