K N Pandita
India and Russia (earlier Soviet Union) have been warm and trustworthy friends ever since the former attained independence in 1947. Russia has always considered the partition of India as part of colonial policy of “divide and rule”. Did India really become an independent and sovereign state is still hotly debated in knowledgeable political circles.
Historians tell us that their friendship and cooperation are based on some fundamental principles and values which states need to follow, and should not be subservient entirely to this or that political ideology.
Russia has never been a colonial power and India has been a colony and subjugated nation for several hundred years. In 2014, when Modi led NDA government was formed in New Delhi Washington Post wrote in the banner line “India gets a nationalist government after a long spell of colonization.”
The erstwhile Soviet Union showed many favours to independent India. She provided her with political, technological, infrastructural and developmental support. In particular, Soviet Union contributed to the modernization of defence services on a large scale. Soviet Union’s valuable contribution to overall development of post-independence India is historic. Soviet Union exercised the right to veto three times in the Security Council on Kashir issue. In the Bangladesh war of 1972, the Soviet regime of the day lost no time in despatching its naval warship to the Bay of Bengal to boost India’s army action against Pakistan’s war in Bangladesh.
In international strategies, India has taken care not to offend Russia or take a stance that would complicate Russia’s position. This is possible only when the relationship is based on historical realities and the law of natura justice.
The West always considered India part of the socialist block. This deprived us an opportunity of quick transition to modern and technically advanced nation because the West was not prepared for transfer of technology to India. Except for defence equipment, the Soviet Union was not technologically as advanced as the West was. Consequently, our transition to the era of technological advancement was delayed.
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Despite many hindrances which nations are forced to take cognizance of, both countries tried not to put a halt to the nature and scope of bilateral cooperation established over many decades. India, depending on her own resources, steadily continued her march towards scientific and technological advancement, re-setting her relations with most of the countries in all the continents, expanding her trade, taking active part in international affairs of common interest. She received full support from Moscow.
The two countries trusted their cordial relations. India did not join the western block in denouncing Russia for its military action in Ukraine. India had to meet a barrage of criticism for declining to sign the condemn resolution at the UN. The reason for India to do so was not to repay the debt of gratitude for the largesse of Russia. No, that is not the right analysis. India wanted to convey a message to the Western powers that firstly carving out military blocs like NATO was detrimental to international peace. Secondly, patronizing a proxy on the western border of Russia was a provocative act which no sovereign country, much less a superpower, would tolerate. India had the conviction and did not hesitate to invite the displeasure of the US and some of her European allies. India emphasized that instead of exacerbating the tense situation by supplying huge war material to Ukraine, the right thing to do was to stop stoking the Ukrainian fire flames.
It has to be noted that while declining to sign the condemnation resolution, India, nevertheless, bluntly told President Putin during a meeting on the sidelines of SCO in Samarkand: “Your Excellency, you know this is not the era of war.” This cliché became viral and diplomats have quoted it umpteen times during their official parleys.
Much can be read in these ten words. Essentially, the purport is to convey that disputes have to be resolved through negotiations and not through the use of muscle power.
The question is why is India confused by the statement of President Putin on the conflict that erupted on 7 October in the Middle East? India expected Moscow to condemn the brutal and barbaric attack of Hamas on Israel on October 7. But avoiding the crux of the issue, President Putin harped on the formula of two independent states of Palestine and Israel.
We are aware that the formula has been making rounds in major international political circles. By and large, there is substantial convergence of opinion among many world leaders on this formula. World opinion has not underestimated the strength in the essence of the formula. But, three entities have to be taken into account and dealt with on the basis of respective merit; these are Palestine, Hamas and Gaza. Palestine Authority is very much in place and Gaza Strip sits on legal crutches forged through some agreements between the two.
But the case of Hamas is quite different. To put it bluntly, Hamas is a diehard terrorist organization created, supported and financed by Iran, a country that has vowed to demolish the Zionist State for the reason that the Arab Islamic states have failed to translate the Quranic injunction into practice. By brazenly extending existential threat to Israel, Iran is violating the UN Charter of which she is a signatory, Geneva Convention, International lawand the natural law of justice.
It is a deep terrorist organization closely associated with the regime of the Iranian Ayatollahs. Its volunteers and suicide squads receive training, arms and ammunition from Iran via clandestine routes. It has turned Gaza Strip into a virtual war zone by constructing several hundred kms of tunnels wherefrom arms and ammunition is transported to various terrorist posts. Its armoury is replete with rockets, missiles, bombs, rocket launchers and maybe chemical weapons also.
We do not need to tell President Putin the barbarity and bestiality unleashed by the assaulting Hamas gunmen against the Israeli kids, women, youth and senior citizens. A parallel of these atrocities are to be found in the annals of Chingiz Khans expeditions only.
The Hamas murderers deserve to be condemned most sternly for crimes against humanity. Alas! Moscow has not turned its attention to this reality. This is despite the fact that Moscow has also faced the spate after spate of terrorist attacks in Chechnya, in Caucasus, in Uzbekistan and elsewhere. She has also urgently worked on the question how counter-terrorism mechanism should be devised.
By not condemning Hamas for its brutalities, Moscow has indirectly articulated willingness to compromise with Islamic terror. It pains India taking into account that India has been facing the brunt of jihadist terrorism for nearly three decades and half in Kashmir and elsewhere. President Putin’s lop-sided statement on Hamas has made Prime Minister Modi speechless.
In final analysis, we would like to draw President Putin’s attention to the fact that the masters of Hamas proxy are now emboldened to appear in public and assert the supremacy of their faith worldwide. Hopefully, he will have seen the footage of millions and millions of Muslims bringing out massive demonstrations in almost all major cities of the world with the war cry “Christians after the Jews”. We had a firm belief that Russia would be last of the world powers to fall in the trap of political expediency over the value of human life.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
