India’s take on Putin land grab could have been better worded

In the afterglow of Prime Minister Narendra Modi saying ‘this is not the era for war’ in his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit at Samarkand, India was feted at the international fora for taking a principled yet neutral stand. That brought in loads of responsibilities, especially since India is set to assume rotational presidentship of not just the SCO but also the G20 grouping for a year amid lobbying for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. It’s a given that the seizure of any country’s territory by force is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and international law.

The law should apply equally across the board—from China’s aggressions in Ladakh to Russia’s in Ukraine. Yet, Putin signed a decree announcing the annexation of about 15% of Ukraine’s territory after sham referenda in its four regions, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Weaponising an instrument of democracy without making it free and fair cannot have legitimacy. 

Hours later, when a US-led resolution sought to call out Putin at the UNSC for his second land grab in Ukraine—his first was in 2014 when Russia swallowed Crimea—India was among those that abstained from voting. India’s permanent representative to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, called the development in Ukraine disturbing while saying the decision to abstain was taken keeping in view the totality of the situation. Nevertheless, annexation completely changed the dynamic as it came with the threat of a nuclear attack if Ukraine were to reclaim its land. It cannot be compared with the situation in the past when India stepped away from UNSC landmines on Ukraine through abstentions. The only occasion it voted against Russia was on a procedural matter to let Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy address the UN General Assembly through a recorded message. 

India has arguably been the biggest beneficiary of trade with Russia since the war broke, helping it save its economy though other significant countries are staring at recession. But there comes a time when nations must speak up unequivocally against redrawing geographical boundaries through the barrel of the gun. Fence-sitters often end up in the margins of history. A more specific though nuanced criticism of the land grabs, even while continuing the abstention strategy, could have been in order while serving India’s supreme national interest.