“Did Macron, Blinken, and Cleverly expect our PM to tell Russia’s President that ‘Yes, the time has come for war?’” Bewilderment writ on his face, a very senior official of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) was referring, in a private conversation, to Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, Antony Blinken, the United States Secretary of State, and James Cleverly, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary. All of them had praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the nine words he said in public when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 16.
“I know that today's era is not of war,” was all Modi said without directly mentioning even once the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Everyone in the behemoth of the Indian government took the cue from Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra, and chose not to explain on record what was on Modi’s mind when he spoke these words to Putin. “I think, it would be very unfair for me to interpret what the two leaders openly said. You all heard them very, very clearly,” was what Kwatra said in Samarkand after Modi’s bilateral meeting with Putin.
For a change, even politicians, who love the sound of their own voices, chose not to go beyond repeating the Prime Minister’s now-famous nine words.
Naturally, when India abstained on the United Nations Security Council resolution against Russia over a secessionist referendum in four ethnic Russian provinces in Ukraine, there was consternation behind closed doors in Western chancelleries. That vote was two weeks after Modi met Putin. The West had hoped in vain that the Modi government would distance itself from Putin as a follow up to the “era is not of war” remark.
When India’s new Permanent Representative to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, delivered her customary ‘Explanation of Vote (EoV)’, it became crystal clear that India’s position on Russia and Ukraine had not shifted even a little bit between the start of their war and now. Kamboj was authorised to explain in her EoV what Modi meant in his exchange with Putin. “India’s Prime Minister has emphasised that this cannot be an era of war. We, therefore, sincerely hope for an early resumption of peace talks to bring about an immediate ceasefire and resolution of the conflict,” she said. “India’s position has been clear and consistent from the very beginning of this conflict...It is important that pathways are found for a return to the negotiating table. Keeping in view the totality of the evolving situation, India has decided to abstain on this resolution.”
Subsequently, on October 4, Modi spoke to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on the phone. The MEA was forthcoming on the record about this conversation. “There can be no military solution to the conflict and conveyed India’s readiness to contribute to any peace efforts,” it quoted Modi telling Zelenskyy. This was also the most unequivocal statement by India that it is prepared to play a role in bringing peace before all those involved push the world towards Armageddon.
Those privy to what transpired between Modi and Putin after their public statements in Samarkand say the Prime Minister similarly offered India’s good offices to end the war. Without a nod there from the Russian President, the MEA would not have been authorised by the Prime Minister’s Office to make public Modi’s peace offer to Zelenskyy.
Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s peace offer to the belligerents in the escalating war and the wide-ranging international support for Modi after his Samarkand statement, India is unlikely to rush into any mammoth effort to bring Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiating table. The harsh reality is that there is little meeting ground yet between the combating sides: Russia is too strong to be defeated in this war, and Ukraine is too weak to win it. Modi is not in a position to address this dilemma, which is fundamental to any negotiations. Until the warring sides acknowledge this reality — of which there is not sign so far — there cannot be peace.
Cynicism in the West over their pretensions bordering on the righteous and the forsaken reality that it was really the NATO which pushed Putin into this war are also roadblocks to well-meaning peace moves by India or anyone else. Some Western leaders — though not all — who praised Modi for his Samarkand statement were duplicitous in doing so. If they were truly sincere towards peace, they would not have dismissed Putin’s previous offers to Zelenskyy to negotiate. Nor would they have violated the many plurilateral arrangements put in place over many years, and encouraged Ukraine to follow suit.
A consistent objective since the end of the Cold War to weaken and break up Russia is fundamental to US policy, which is echoed in parts of Europe. In this effort, their praise for Modi masks no-holds barred attempts to drive a wedge between New Delhi and Moscow. If India is serious about any peace initiative, Modi will have to take into account that the West will only choose what suits their long-term goals in Russia, not the larger global good.
It should not be lost on Indians that except for nine words about war era, almost the entirety of what Modi addressed Putin was about their bilateral relations. “The world also knows that it is an unbreakable friendship,” Modi told Putin. The Western world knows this too but will not acknowledge it. Kwatra confirmed at a special briefing in Samarkand that “discussions between Prime Minister and President Putin included extensive conversation on the entire range of important bilateral cooperation issues across the full gamut of engagement.”
That is likely to remain so despite attempts by Washington to disrupt it.