Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Poland and Ukraine for a day each last week. Knowing the reality of the situation in Ukraine, no one expected the moon from the visit. Nevertheless, it was an event that raised India’s international status and deserves full analysis for the initiative at a difficult juncture of geopolitical events. It may be correct to state that while the world looks at an early end of hostilities, a ceasefire and potential resolution, the efforts towards that goal have at best been transactional and without impact. Therefore, a reality check at this stage would be helpful.
In November 2022, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced a 10-point peace plan. This plan has formed the basis of most peace efforts of the Western world, but obviously favours Ukraine. A Russian two-point proposal is at the heart of President Vladimir Putin’s plan, which Ukraine has rejected outright. This involves the withdrawal of Ukraine’s troops from the territories of four oblasts—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. The second aspect is the core issue: Putin wants Ukraine to officially abandon plans to join NATO. None of these issues have seen serious discussion at the four or more peace conferences that have been largely Western-oriented. Russia, anyway, was not present at any of them.
In light of this impasse, how should one look at PM Modi’s visit to Kyiv? The West has responded cautiously to the visit, with the US using diplomatese in terming it “potentially helpful”. Modi visited Russia just six weeks ago and repeated the sense of his earlier missive delivered on the sidelines of the SCO summit at Tashkent in September 2022, in which he stated that “today’s era is not of war”. Putin had then responded by stating “we would want all this to end as soon as possible”. The ability to get a message across to Putin and elicit a response was an achievement and was recognised as such by the international community that has desisted from actually going the extra mile to be in direct communication with Putin. Modi’s visit, albeit a brief one that involved a 10-hour rail journey from Warsaw to Kyiv, should be seen in that light.
Modi made a crucial statement during the visit that ‘dialogue and diplomacy’ was the only solution to end the war, offering to help personally towards peace mediation with Russia. He stated, “India was never neutral in this war; we are on the side of peace." Deeply affected by the ongoing war and the responses to it, India’s was one of the first voices that chided the parties to the conflict. Emerging from the pandemic with a huge negative growth and seeking economic restoration, it was unimaginable that Indian economic interests would be hit so early by the effects of the war. Worried oil markets, an impending food crisis in the Global South and disruption of numerous supply chains was the immediate aftermath. With the sanctions regime generated by the West, India came under immense pressure in view of the Russian connection to India’s defence equipment and energy needs, and the overall geopolitical connection to many of its international concerns.
The significance of the visit needs to be viewed from different points of view. First, the Modi sojourn commenced with a visit to Poland, an important nation in central Europe’s scheme of things. Having visited Austria and Italy a few weeks ago, this was a good rounding off to access the ‘rest of Europe’. However, the flagship visit was the one to Kyiv. The media has called it ‘tightrope walking’ by India in view of the negativity expressed by the West on Modi’s visit to Moscow and the symbolism of the bear hug he gave Putin. The latter, a characteristic gesture of the Indian PM, received unnecessary attention. The real issue was India’s ability to maintain its strategic autonomy, something not to the liking of the West.
For Modi, the visit to Kyiv was about two things. First, an expression of confirmation that India is its own master and pursues its strategic interests pragmatically; that Ukraine was important to it in terms of bilateral relations too. Second, an important message was that India is one of those nations that yet has the ability to speak to both Ukraine and Russia, and speak with a degree of frankness not gloved under diplomatese.
It was the creation of a firm base for the future where India’s worth may come handy to the world. Nations follow a balancing strategy to further their interests. Thus, India could not remain shy of making known its worth that it’s one of the few nations with the capability of access to both sides and would in the future be one of the more important constituents of the process for seeking peace.
Currently, both sides are stuck on the maximalist positions they have adopted through the 10- (Ukraine) and two- (Russia) point agendas, which is quite expected as even a slight dilution in stance would be sensed as a sign of weakness. Modi’s visits to both Russia and Ukraine, separated by six weeks, have been without agenda and any formulae, allowing the expression of necessity for peace without being mired by detail. That’s what should make these more significant.
The New York Times reported, “India is seen as interested in a resolution to the war to avoid further isolation of Russia in the West, which could push Moscow into a closer embrace with China, India’s rival in Asia.” That is how most of the Western media will see it. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy’s post-visit media conference has drawn flak for his rather awkward comments on India’s intent. One should remember that in the world of geopolitics, it does not take much time for a change of attitude; till then, one remains committed to mindsets. A nation at war will have such mindsets and the world needs to perhaps bear this while approaching potential peace.
(Views are personal)
(atahasnain@gmail.com)
Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd) | Former Commander, Srinagar-based 15 Corps. Now Chancellor, Central University of Kashmir