It is about time the world’s largest democracy put its foot down even if meant going an “ally” of several decades. It is one thing for India to be rightfully preaching about the values of democracy and human rights but it is totally unconscionable that the country keeps looking the other way when one of the worst kinds of bloodletting is taking place in a part of the world that has clear political, economic and strategic compulsions. But when push came to shove at the United Nations Security Council on the Syria vote, India decided to go along with the majority and cast its vote against the Assad regime.
There is some heartburn in India about the vote and it comes from expected political circles. But to say that New Delhi went along with the vote to stay with the United States and a Western sponsored resolution is as naïve as it is wrong.
A careful reading of what India has said prior to the critical vote amply drives home the point that it was not only expressing its disdain at the goings-on in Syria both politically and on the violence fronts but also standing up to its own principles and values on democracy. And in doing so, New Delhi has made it known that it is only concerned about the merits of the case and not mechanically choosing “sides”.
India, as a global power, cannot remain silent on the horrific bloodletting that is taking place in Syria and in the name of unrest. In last one year or so, close to 7,000 people have died; and just a day prior to the Security Council vote it is believed that nearly 200 people in the city of Homs were done away with by the security forces. In the short and longer term points of view, India — unlike a few others — cannot be seen as a country with blood on its hands. A meaningful democracy has to stand up and be heard, even if it is going to be hurtful to allies.
Like any other United Nations Security Council Resolution the latest one on Syria has obviously been watered down with New Delhi making it clear that it cannot accept some of the conditions even if it had the blessings of the Arab League. In short India did not need to hide behind the Arab League cover to vote against the Assad regime. Indian diplomats in New York have made it abundantly clear that New Delhi was not looking at regime change; it was not for time-bound political process to be put in place; not looking for precise conditions like President Assad handing over powers to his Vice President; or for that matter was looking at the violence in a one-sided fashion. However deplorable the crackdown has been emerging, New Delhi chose to condemn violence emanating from both sides. The cycle of violence had to end, in India’s view, keeping in mind the larger interests of security and stability of Syria.
India’s vote against the Assad regime has to be also seen in the context of the continuing frustration with Damascus not keeping its word or in a tendency to pull back on what had been promised. In the last eleven months India has been pushing for a monitoring team along with other members of IBSA to put an end to the agonising stalemate.
In other words, Official Syria has been given a very long rope and the time had come for New Delhi to stand up and send a powerful signal, not at the bidding of the United States, Europe or the Arab League but a message within the framework of Indian interests — regionally and globally— and values.
There are at least three things that stand out in the latest Indian position on Syria.
First, the latest vote against the Assad regime does not in any way signal that New Delhi has set a permanent marker against how to vote in the future resolutions at the world body. Washington may be pleased that New Delhi went along with the majority in spite of the rare double veto, but it is also quite mindful that India is not to be taken for granted.
New Delhi has broken ranks with America and the West in the past and will continue to look at issues within the context of Indian interests and not as a mechanical drummer boy.
Second, it is in the kind of message India is sending to the Arab world. That Syria is losing friends in the Arab and Islamic world is for all to see. But in all this hoopla of a sudden love in the so-called Arab Spring, the supreme irony is not forgotten.
Some of the major players in the Middle East who are pushing for democracy and openness in Syria can simply be laughed at for the kind of democracy they are having in their own societies. Sadly some of them are also sending troops to smaller sheikhdoms and fiefdoms to crack down on pro-democracy movements.
For a very long time, especially in the 1970s and 1980s when even Arab states had come to accept and deal with Israel, India was expending its lung power from the roof tops trying to be more “pro-Arab” by condemning the jewish state. And finally now a message to all the tin pot dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere: that New Delhi is prepared to break away from the past and hold on to what it really believes in. But this breaking away will only be on Indian terms and interests and not blind-sided.
Third and most importantly, the vote against the Assad regime goes the distance in showing off India’s global credentials — that it is willing to take positions on issues of global concern instead of being a fence sitter or carping from the sidelines. India has long emerged as a global player in the international system but also showing signs that it is willing to take on global responsibilities even if it means that the so-called allies are going to be miffed at not hanging on to or still mired in anachronistic thinking of the Cold War era.
(Views expressed in the column are the author’s own)
Sridhar Krishnaswami is Head of the School of Media Studies, SRM University, Chennai.
E-mail: sridhar54k@gmail.com