Special Post: Indian Parliament's Discussion on the Ukraine War
Hi folks,
I know that this tracker is meant to look at the People’s Daily. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so today owing to other priorities. But I thought I should share something different that would be of immediate interest to many of you.
On April 5, 2022, the lower house of the Indian Parliament, the Lok Sabha, had a discussion on the Ukraine war. If I’ve got it right, 28 Members of Parliament spoke during the discussion, some talking for longer than others.
I thought a summary of the key speakers and points that were made in the discussion would be helpful for a more nuanced understanding of not just the Indian position but also the political debate in the country. Often the loudest narratives on social media, preconceived notions or even disinformation tends to hijack the discourse. So this effort of documenting the debate in Parliament is an attempt to offer a sense of the political mood in India, and the thinking about India’s strategic interests cutting across party lines. I would also like to underscore that the Indian position is distinct, based on an understanding of Indian interests and security and strategic dilemmas, and this discussion brings this out well.
I’ve obviously not summarised all 28 speakers’ comments, but I think what we have below is a very healthy representation of the discussion. While you go through these, I would also advise a bit of reading between the lines, and keeping in mind this is the country’s political elite talking among themselves but also to their constituents. Therefore, several MPs spent a lot of time talking about the evacuation of Indian students and the challenges related to their education.
My broad takeaways from the discussion are as follows:
The language is not as harsh as what we’ve heard in Europe or the US — some MPs were more blunt than others — but there is clear unhappiness with the Russian invasion. At the same time, some MPs did talk about the complex history of developments of the past 30 years between NATO and Russia.
While there is a sense of appreciation for the historic relationship with Russia, there is significant concern about the deepening Moscow-Beijing partnership. Many MPs pointed to the difficulties that this relationship will pose for India in the future. In my reading, this is the first such serious public conversation regarding the China-Russia relationship presenting a strategic challenge for India that I have noted.
Most MPs seemed to argue that we are entering a new divided world order, which will present new challenges for Indian foreign policy. There is a clear desire for India to maintain a non-aligned position and retain its strategic autonomy. But if one reads between the lines, there’s also an understanding that Indian policy has structurally shifted towards a closer partnership with the West over time. Importantly, no one in their comments was critical of this shift.
Most MPs were rather clear that China presents the biggest strategic and security threat for India.
There is tremendous sensitivity to public hectoring by others seeking to influence Indian policy. To me, the language of interests will clearly be far more useful than moral posturing in this sense. Public admonishment is a self-defeating approach to be honest.
Finally, there were calls from many MPs for a more proactive Indian policy, potentially even attempts at mediation. I thought Minister Jaishankar’s comments about the engagement with Sergei Lavrov was interesting in this regard. He said that India encourages talks between Ukraine and Russia, including at the level of presidents, and this was conveyed to Lavrov. But Jaishankar did not elaborate on any significant mediation intention or effort from India.
(Note, I’ve linked the videos to all the speeches I have summarised. These are my transcriptions and summaries and not official ones so there can be errors. If you’d like to quote someone, I recommend going through the video and re-confirming the comment.)
I. Manish Tewari - INC: He talked about the history of India-Russia ties. We get a recollection of the events of 1971, with the Soviet Union supporting India amid US pressure during the Bangladesh war.
Then he talked about Russia’s responsibility in this current war, and said that a friend of India has made a mistake, which calls for India to tell them so. But he also said that the Anglo-American alliance bears “equal responsibility.” Ukraine should have been “far more sensitive to Russian concerns,” particularly when it comes to the eastward expansion of NATO. Possibly Ukraine should have been more “circumspect” be “far more cognisant” of Russian security concerns.
Then, he commended the government for being “cautious” and “circumspect.” He says that Western pressure is “just getting built up.” He says that the “Nehruvian autonomy luxury may not be available to India.” He then suggested that a series of changes have taken place in Indian policy over the past three decades. This is because of changing geopolitics, India’s economic liberalisation, the deepening Indo-US engagement and and then the deepening defense agreements with the United States, and the formation of the Quad — all of which have taken us far closer to the West than we would have been comfortable with in this current situation. “Strategic autonomy and Nehruvian principles of non-alignment are principles are worth going back to,” he concluded.
II. Brijendra Singh, BJP: The conflict in Ukraine is perhaps the most important event since the fall of the Berlin Wall, he said. It has exposed the limitations of the existing world order. It’s a European conflict, but its ramifications are seen around the world. Unfortunately Russian TV is blacked out in India, so we don’t get their perspective, he added. The war has demonstrated India’s independent policy. He spent a lot of time talking about India’s evacuation of citizens from Ukraine, praising the government.
He then gave an explanation about Russia’s threat perception, and talks about Poland and Ukraine being prisoners of geography. He quotes John Mearsheimer’s viral lecture: “It sounds almost prophetic.” He then said that India has been “steadfast” and “consistent” in its statements. He talked about the future being uncertain, but praises present Indian foreign policymakers. On the India-Russia friendship, he says that India has historically not criticised Russia, so it’s position today is consistent with that. This is essentially meant for domestic critics, in order to point to the policies of the past governments.
He finally said that the Quad is in place and that the US “has accepted, maybe conditionally, our stance and our compulsions.”
III. Dr. T. Sumathy Thamizhachi Thangapandian - DMK: She began by talking about civilians being bombed. And she talked about the Bucha killings, blaming Russian soldiers. She called for India to be an “honest broker” between Russia and Ukraine. She talks about the importance of India having to walk a diplomatic tight-rope, while pushing back against Biden’s characterisation of India as “shaky.”
She talked about India needing to balance ties with Russia and its concerns about China-Russia ties, but emphasised the importance of India taking a moral position. She quotes news reports about Russian soldiers targeting civilians, including women and children. She says “we have to take up the moral responsibility of who is the aggressor and who is on the other side of the war.” She talks about India’s long-tested relationship with Russia and the challenges of energy supplies.
She calls the invasion an “unfair war.” She talks about Putin’s comments about de-nazification of Ukraine, saying that this is a “fiasco.” She talks about Zelensky’s father suffering at the hands of the Nazis. She says that the war by Russia is a violation of the UN charter. ICJ has condemned the war. And the Indian judge on the ICJ also voted against Russia, she said. She said that a NATO-Russia council was formed to ease Russia’s concerns and that Russia was included in the G8 to sooth its bruised ego.
IV. Sudip Bandyopadhyay — TMC: He says that “we stand by the government.” He began by expressing concerns about the future of the students who have returned from Ukraine. He called it Russia’s war. He called the war “disastrous,” “painful,” “shocking” and “heartbreaking.” When talking about civilian casualties, injuries and displacement, he called the war a “Russia’s invasion.” He said that “we should try to initiate” any steps towards peace that might be possible. He also recounted USSR’s historic support to India. He called for India to initiate dialogue and demonstrate leadership.
V. Minister Hardeep Singh Puri — BJP: He predominantly defended the government’s evacuation of Indian citizens. He avoided commenting on India’s language on the war or on India’s votes at the UN. He said that foreign and security policies have to be made based on tangible national interests, rather than easy temptations, referring to social media narrative. He also defended the rise of gas prices in India, basically saying that the government had managed it better than others.
VI. Pinaki Misra — BJD: He stated that even the most trenchant critics of the government are one with it on matters of foreign policy. He commended the government on continuing with the non-alignment policy. He said that “I particularly commend the government for the manner in which it has stood up to the near hectoring by the United States.” He says that “lowly officials” have openly tried to “threaten us” and even the president of the US has said that India’s position is shaky. He criticised the US’ “moral posturing.” He calls the US “the first country to have employed nuclear weapons on a mass scale; the first country to have carried out a savage war in Korea first and then in Vietnam and thereafter all through the Middle East…”
He warned about the possibility of India facing isolation with the West coming together; he talked about the Russia-China axis and China’s strengthening position and Russia being a junior partner. He called the sanctions “savage” too. He also talked about India potentially playing “peacemaker.” He called on the PM to play a more proactive role in arriving at a cessation of hostilities.
He talked about India to step up its export drive with wheat supplies from Russia and Ukraine being hit.
VII. Shashi Tharoor - INC: He commended the government on its diplomacy. He talked about the concerns with the evacuation and praised India’s supply of humanitarian aid to Ukraine. There was also criticism. Tharoor said: “I was shocked at our first couple of statements at the UN.” He doesn’t criticise the abstention, but criticises the government for not mentioning the principles that India stands for in these statements. These are:
the UN charter
state sovereignty
inviolability of borders
inadmissibility of use of force in resolving disputes.
He then says that it took a while, but we have now done this.
He then said that it was clear that one side was being attacked, and…
“if you don’t want to use harsh language against that side in the name of your friendship, then I think one has to also ask, if we can’t speak frankly to our friends, then what is the friendship worth?”
He said that we have to understand that it is Russia that has resorted to the use of force, and while India has a long list of historic “I owe you’s” those were to the Soviet Union — something that Ukraine was also part of. He talks about India’s defense trade with Russia, but says that “we pay top dollar” for those systems; the seller needs the buyer as much as the buyer needs the seller, we should not act as if it’s always one-way traffic.
He then said that it is important for others also to understand that refusing to condemn Russia is not the same as endorsing Russia.
The Ukraine war has exposed India’s strategic vulnerabilities, he added. He said that India is somewhat out of synch with the Quad. He commends the government on making sure that the Quad countries have understood India’s position. He then said that a Russia that becomes a subordinate partner to China is of major concern to India. He then wonders, “are we witnessing the emergence of a Russia-China-Pakistan axis that we have to think about?”
He talked about the recent visits by foreign diplomats to state that this represents an opportunity.
“It is the opportunity to leverage not only understanding for our position, but also to go beyond our traditional reluctance to choose sides on matters in which frankly it is sometimes necessary to take a stand. We cannot sit on the fence all the time…”
He said that it is important for India to take a step forward and offer itself in a mediating capacity. He says that Israel and Turkey has been doing this. India should also take a constructive role in this.
VIII. Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy - YSR Congress: His comments were supportive of the Indian government in general. He largely focussed on medical students going to Ukraine and the need for educational facilities to be expanded in India.
IX. Shrikant Shinde — Shiv Sena: He began by talking about the economic impact of the war on India. He touched upon sectors like pharmaceuticals and edible oils. He was also critical of the government’s evacuation of students, and also about Indian students going abroad to study because of the lack of facilities in India. He called on the government to consider India’s role as a potential mediator.
X. Bhartruhari Mahtab — BJD: He commended the government and focused on the work that needs to be done to support the students who have been evacuated.
XI. Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury — INC: He mentioned the “annexation” of Crimea and talked about the killing of thousands since then. Much of the comments by the MP were framed as questions to the government.
He asked about the impact of the conflict on India’s foreign policy resilience; impact of the war on India’s interests and engagement in Eurasia; will India’s stand affect its growing synergy with the West as well as with the Quad in the Indo-Pacific; he asked about potentially adverse impact of CAATSA sanctions on India. He asked about the impact of sanctions on India, particularly with regard to the possibility of Rupee-Ruble trade. He asked, will cheap Russian crude imports translate into lower gas prices for the ordinary citizens in India?
He talked about the challenges related to Russia becoming potentially more dependent on China. He actually says: Putin becoming more dependent on Xi Jinping rather than mentioning the two countries.
“Seeing an important ally being completely economically and politically dependent on a key strategic adversary - China - is not to Delhi’s advantage. Sino-Russia ties have taken a whole different logic and is much more in favour of China.”
He then talks about India’s deep, historic ties with Russia. He mentions Moscow’s support for India at the NSG after the Indo-US nuclear deal. He says that our ties with Russia are not simply those of a “buyer and seller,” there is joint research and development, such as the Brahmos missile, Sukhoi jets or T90 tanks…” He asked what is the government’s thinking on the future of all of this engagement?
XII. Saugata Roy — TMC: He basically outlineed some of India’s challenges and offered a lot of praise for EAM Jaishankar. But he also talked about the importance of the PM acting as a statesman. He invoked Nehru and Krishna Menon, while calling for a “proactive” role by the Indian PM.
XIII. Ritesh Pandey — BSP: He talked about the Ukraine war leading to global security challenges, with countries in Europe re-focusing on weapons and defense development. He said that he agrees with the assessment that this current conflict has roots in the politics and geopolitics of Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He supports efforts towards a peaceful resolution to the crisis. He talked about the complex situation that India faces. He said that Indian policy has to navigate while there are tensions between two nuclear powers; navigate amid the complex relationship between a friend and an adversary and navigate the tensions between two friends.
He said that India is moving in a non-aligned fashion as best as possible. He then talked about the challenges related to the proximity between China and Russia. He said that given India’s position today with regard to the Ukraine issue, it is worth thinking that in case a neighbouring country violates our territorial integrity, then at that moment, given that China today is standing firmly with Russia, then at that moment will we likely see Russia also adopting a position of not choosing sides between its two friends?
He then talked about the challenges related to commodity and food price inflation that the government will have to address.
Finally on Wednesday, April 6, 2022: Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar responded to the questions and statements by Members of Parliament.
He said that India’s policy must keep in mind national beliefs and values, interests and strategy.”
He outlined what India is advocating:
India is strongly against the conflict. In this day and age, dialogue and diplomacy are the right answers to any disputes. The current global order is built on the UN charter, respect for international law, and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states.
India has chosen the side of peace, and for an immediate end to violence.
On the killings in Bucha, he said we are deeply disturbed by the reports; we strongly condemn the killings which have taken place there; and we support the call for an independent investigation.
He pushed back against the criticism of Indian energy purchases from Russia, but mentioning that energy flows are continuing in Europe despite the tensions…At a time when energy costs have spiked, we need to ensure that the common person in India is not subject to an additional burden. He talked about fertilisers and food prices rising. He said that these decisions amid challenges related to commodity markets are “legitimate pursuits of national interests by India. They are similar to what other nations are doing from their particular perspective. Attributing a political colouring to it is uncalled for, it is unfair.”
India’s national strategy:
Diplomacy: He said that India continues to press forcefully for an immediate cessation of hostilities. We encourage talks between Ukraine and Russia, including at the level of presidents. PM Modi has spoken to them both in this regard. This was also the message conveyed to Sergei Lavrov during his visit.
Ground Situation: In this, he talked about India’s provision of humanitarian supplies. He says that more Indian supplies of medicines are on the way to Ukraine.
Economic challenges: He said that our focus is to soften the economic impact of the conflict on our economy and for India’s partners. India will work with its partners in this regard. He talked about India’s support for Sri Lanka, and wheat, sugar, rice, etc., which India can provide and has been providing. He said that we will step forward with regard to global demands for food, grains, medicines. On edible oils or fertilisers, he said that India’s commercial diplomacy needs to find more sources for such products — whether it is supplies for lentils or raw materials for fertilisers.
After this, a lot of time was spent on addressing the criticism related to the evacuation operation. At one point in this, the minister credited PM Modi’s intervention leading to a momentary ceasefire युद्ध विराम allowing Indian students to evacuate. He said that it was PM Modi’s conversation with Putin that allowed Indian students to evacuate from Kharkiv. The Russians informed us about a safe zone where there would be no firing, he said. With regard to the evacuation from Sumy, he said that the PM spoke to both Russian and Ukrainian leaders seeking a time window for the firing to stop so that Indian students could be evacuated. He said that the Ukrainians and Red Cross assisted the students. He says that India evacuated citizens of 18 countries.
On the world order, he said that yes the world order is changing. The G7 shift to G20 is indicative of the world order changing. He said that the world order is changing because of the pandemic.
“Countries saw what happens when there is too much concentration of economic production in one geography — when there is not enough resilience and reliability in supply chains. World order is changing because countries today worry about trust and transparency. That they are worried where is their data and which technology should they trust. World order is changing because an Afghanistan like situation happened — so you are left with a problem close to our homes, which we are worry about more than the countries who were there earlier. And now the world order will change, partly because of the consequences of Ukraine. But what is the solution to this? To my mind, the solution is that we have to be stronger. We have to reduce our dependency on the external world — it can never be total. But the way to deal with the new world order is really Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India). It is not just an economic policy; it is a Bharat that looks after its people, a Bharat which is capable of running Operation Ganga.”
Towards the end, he also answered some questions. One of them was about a potential Rupee-Ruble mechanisms and the possibility of Indian mediation in the conflict.
“Our effort today is to stabilise economic transactions between India and Russia…at the moment, there is an inter-ministerial group, which is led by the Finance Ministry, which is seeing how the payments issue can be best addressed. There are experiences from the past, which are relevant in this regard. But I think this is an issue where the Finance Minister will have to take a call.”
Jaishankar did not answer the question about possible Indian mediation.
Thanks a lot for this one. It is always good to have a balanced analysis about policies that seem to be very far away from us (geographically). I encourage you to do it more oftenly
This was VERY informative, thank you.