India has been known as an actor in world politics that had always chosen to refrain from any comment or interference on matters that do not concern it. But not any longer. The first breaker of this tradition was perhaps New Delhi’s comments on Türkiye’s Operation Peace Spring three years back. As one will recall, Indian Ministry of External Affairs has issued a very rare public statement titled “unilateral military offensive by Turkey”, expressing that “We are deeply concerned at the unilateral military offensive by Turkey in north-east Syria. Turkey’s actions can undermine stability in the region and the fight against terrorism. Its action also has the potential for causing humanitarian and civilian distress. We call upon Turkey to exercise restraint and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. We urge the peaceful settlement of all issues through dialogue and discussion.”
If tracing back the subject, what had triggered the reaction of New Delhi, which generally has not interfered in the affairs of other far regions, to the operation launched by Türkiye against terror outfits in its Syrian borders? The answer was clear, Ankara’s Kashmir stance. As far as India is concerned, not Kashmir is just an internal affair, also a matter of prestige. Regarding the developments over the revocation of Article 370 of Indian Constitution, which had been granting the legal basis for the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s statements during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting were not a welcome outcome for New Delhi, which firmly sees its Kashmir issue as its internal affairs and strongly opposes the internationalisation of it. Moreover, the interactions of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, amid the same UNGA meeting, with the heads of Greece, Armenia and the Greek Cypriot Administration, who in Türkiye’s neighbourhood which have had historically strained ties and disputes with Ankara, were described as a “swift respond and strong message to Ankara” in the Indian media.
If one comes to three years later from three years ago, this year in late September, hours after President Erdoğan brought Kashmir to the agenda at the UNGA meet, Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s statement that Cyprus should be resolved in accordance with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions in his bilateral meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu was again mostly interpreted as a “response to Türkiye” by some Indian circles. However, it is worthy of noting that Türkiye does not necessarily read these developments as a response, because Ankara usually views its each relationship has a feature of its own. Ironically and fortunately, even at times when Türkiye-India ties are at an all-time low, their trade, tourism and cultural relations relatively somehow keep blossoming out. Meanwhile, also this year in late October, at UNSC meet on Syria, India’s deputy envoy to UN R. Ravindra called for withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria, calling for comprehensive nationwide ceasefire in the war-torn West Asian country.
In the context of the latest UNGA’s meet on the human rights situation in Xinjiang, China, earlier in October, (again) in a first, India officially commented on the issue. But not in the UNGA’s meeting, in a government briefing. At a regular news briefing, Indian Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said that “The human rights of the people of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region should be respected and guaranteed. We hope that the relevant party will address the situation objectively and properly.”
However, just a day before, New Delhi abstained on a draft resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) seeking a debate on the human rights situation in China’s Xinjiang region. Then why India abstained? If ever such a question is asked, the answer would likely read, that India abstained does not mean India does not support human rights and is not against discrimination against minorities. Rather, New Delhi does not approve interference in domestic affairs, especially in such multilateral platforms, but always remain committed to all human rights and closely seek and note the situation of human rights no matter where.
By abstention India only made sure that domestic issues were not brought at the UN forum, because it would have broken the tradition of either abstaining or voting against resolutions in such platforms, had if acted otherwise. One may be come up with a couple of reasons on New Delhi’s move here such, that India’s national interest desperately includes stable relations with great powers, that a yes vote would pave the way for human rights merchants to play their card inside India, and that New Delhi’s future prospect for permanent UNSC seat.
That may perhaps stem from India’s position to prevent international criticism of domestic issues. Or perhaps an intend that the prevention of the possibility that the United States uses it to advance their geopolitical interests and propaganda beside impartiality and objectivity the UN has. Or perhaps signals the strategy of struggling without offending the rival. In all three cases, if there be any assumption that abstaining is the sort of a mild-No.
Remember, the development comes at a time when India-China ties are at an all-time low because of the lethal military standoff on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that began in May 2020. And recall, that Beijing too (and Washington too) when the same kind debates related to Kashmir issue, has been so vocal, in UN resolutions or otherwise.
But the same India, since the last decade, has been reluctant the ritual mention of its adherence to the one-China policy in its joint statements and official documents as China issuing stapled visas to visitors from Indian Northeastern state Arunachal Pradesh, which Beijing claims as part of Southern Tibet, and as the sort of response to China’s support for Pakistan and attempts at denying New Delhi entry into the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG). Given China’s military manoeuvres after US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei, in August this year, as one more sample of the very few occasions India has commented on tensions in out of its region, Indian MEA spokesperson called for exercise of restraint and avoidance of actions that will change the status quo. Earlier in November, before and after rare ministerial visit from Taiwan to India, even if some of Indian circles feel New Delhi should leverage its relations with Taipei to balance its ties with Beijing, as that can become a bargaining chip or a Taiwan card with some deft diplomacy if China misbehaves, India’s traditional long-standing policy that has been keeping parallel ties with both Taiwan and China without compromising it’s one-China policy will unlikely alter.
To getting the final say in, it is becoming slightly difficult for India to be neutral to the full or to stay out of conflicts in today’s fluid and complex world politics, somehow or other. Just like its pro-Russian neutral stance in Ukraine war. Consider, as a breaker Indian tradition of successive abstaining in UN votes, despite all Washington’s and the West’s pressures, since Russian aggression began, New Delhi at UNGA voted in favour of a Russian draft resolution on combating glorification of Nazism on November 4, which was used by Moscow to justify its actions in Ukraine, according to the West. But recollect the consistent Russian reticence to criticise New Delhi’s internal issues.
