Bombing of Iran represents a return of old-style imperialism, making the point that might is right with the biggest bang possible without exploding an atomic bomb. Which cat got the tongue of India, leader of the ' global south', when the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites? Why did India turn mute, when the world called on Israel, at the UN, to end its genocide in Gaza? In the forests of Mt Zion and Washington DC, why this appetite for India's respect among nations?
Admittedly, New Delhi has a tough choice in deciding whether to speak up, or mumble 'Victim, de-escalate!' when the US and/or Israel goes rogue. India relies on these partners for vital intelligence and ordnance in the face of hostilities from across the border. It looks embarrassingly difficult to criticise, on the one hand, and extend the other for help, when help is needed.
This embarrassment is more apparent than real. Nations do not play nice with other nations. They pursue their self-interest. If the US helps India with intelligence and weapons, and Israel is happy to sell advanced military technology to India, this is not because a warm, fuzzy feeling envelops Washington or Tel Aviv whenever India crops up in the conversation. It is, because India has its uses.
India enjoys a degree of global respect because it's a large and growing economy with diverse capabilities and enough strategic heft (or the promise of it) to be the countervailing force in the region vis-a-vis China, and has a reputation for reasonably principled behaviour.
India is the world's most populous nation, with 146 cr people. Its per-capita income is barely lower-middle-income. But in aggregate size, it will soon become the world's 4th-largest economy. It has a successful space programme, and nuclear programme that has yielded nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them accurately. It has diversified technological capability and managerial nous, and is home to the world's 3rd-largest herd of unicorns.
India has very large and capable armed forces, and nuclear-powered submarines that can stay submerged for long and undetected, to provide the country with second-strike capability, making for effective nuclear deterrence. Thanks to the Indo-US nuclear deal of 2008, for which Manmohan Singh staked his government's survival, India is a member of key groupings that control access to strategic capability. It's a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Australia Group on chemical weapons and precursor chemicals, and Wassenaar Arrangement on dual-use technologies. It has quasi-membership of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), as well.
Of late - and credit for this must go to the present government - India has begun to marshal its technological and manufacturing capability to build its own weapons and weapons systems. India can, and ought to, do much more. But whatever it already has, makes India a major power in the region. What makes it globally salient is the independent foreign policy it has carefully forged, thanks to Nehru, and pursued since Independence.
This makes for strategic autonomy, and credibility to speak on behalf of other nations of the 'global south', acquired through its role as the moving spirit behind the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and other groupings such as BRICS and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China).
NAM has five basic principles: respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; non-aggression; non-interference in internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence. And long before 'Responsibility to Protect' was formally articulated as a principle guiding international conduct, India had both adopted, and balanced, it with the principles of NAM, when it acted to stop the genocide by West Pakistani forces in East Pakistan, in collaboration with religious fundamentalist elements.
'Responsibility to Protect' imposes the obligation on each state to protect its own people from genocide, and when states fail in that duty, deems breach of the offending nation's sovereignty warranted, to enable the global community to discharge that responsibility. India stands only to gain by standing by those principles at all times. It could attract some hostility from some capitals for some time. But it will win India lasting credibility.
But doesn't the fact that Iran's is an oppressive theocratic regime justify such attacks on its sovereignty? The best way to answer that question is to ask how many people would have welcomed an end being brought to Indira Gandhi's Emergency - the 50th anniversary of its declaration, incidentally, falls today - by an attack by Pakistan, China or the US? Internal oppressors are easier to tackle than powerful occupying forces.
Regime change through external aggression in volatile regions leads to chaos that radiates outside and engulfs distant shores. We saw that with Iraq and Libya. Regime change through internal resistance is something else - the resistance is ready to take charge.
India should find the self-interest, if not moral courage, to speak out against imperial aggression, and uphold the banner of principled international relations.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
Admittedly, New Delhi has a tough choice in deciding whether to speak up, or mumble 'Victim, de-escalate!' when the US and/or Israel goes rogue. India relies on these partners for vital intelligence and ordnance in the face of hostilities from across the border. It looks embarrassingly difficult to criticise, on the one hand, and extend the other for help, when help is needed.
This embarrassment is more apparent than real. Nations do not play nice with other nations. They pursue their self-interest. If the US helps India with intelligence and weapons, and Israel is happy to sell advanced military technology to India, this is not because a warm, fuzzy feeling envelops Washington or Tel Aviv whenever India crops up in the conversation. It is, because India has its uses.
India enjoys a degree of global respect because it's a large and growing economy with diverse capabilities and enough strategic heft (or the promise of it) to be the countervailing force in the region vis-a-vis China, and has a reputation for reasonably principled behaviour.
India is the world's most populous nation, with 146 cr people. Its per-capita income is barely lower-middle-income. But in aggregate size, it will soon become the world's 4th-largest economy. It has a successful space programme, and nuclear programme that has yielded nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them accurately. It has diversified technological capability and managerial nous, and is home to the world's 3rd-largest herd of unicorns.
India has very large and capable armed forces, and nuclear-powered submarines that can stay submerged for long and undetected, to provide the country with second-strike capability, making for effective nuclear deterrence. Thanks to the Indo-US nuclear deal of 2008, for which Manmohan Singh staked his government's survival, India is a member of key groupings that control access to strategic capability. It's a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Australia Group on chemical weapons and precursor chemicals, and Wassenaar Arrangement on dual-use technologies. It has quasi-membership of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), as well.
Of late - and credit for this must go to the present government - India has begun to marshal its technological and manufacturing capability to build its own weapons and weapons systems. India can, and ought to, do much more. But whatever it already has, makes India a major power in the region. What makes it globally salient is the independent foreign policy it has carefully forged, thanks to Nehru, and pursued since Independence.
This makes for strategic autonomy, and credibility to speak on behalf of other nations of the 'global south', acquired through its role as the moving spirit behind the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and other groupings such as BRICS and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China).
NAM has five basic principles: respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; non-aggression; non-interference in internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence. And long before 'Responsibility to Protect' was formally articulated as a principle guiding international conduct, India had both adopted, and balanced, it with the principles of NAM, when it acted to stop the genocide by West Pakistani forces in East Pakistan, in collaboration with religious fundamentalist elements.
'Responsibility to Protect' imposes the obligation on each state to protect its own people from genocide, and when states fail in that duty, deems breach of the offending nation's sovereignty warranted, to enable the global community to discharge that responsibility. India stands only to gain by standing by those principles at all times. It could attract some hostility from some capitals for some time. But it will win India lasting credibility.
But doesn't the fact that Iran's is an oppressive theocratic regime justify such attacks on its sovereignty? The best way to answer that question is to ask how many people would have welcomed an end being brought to Indira Gandhi's Emergency - the 50th anniversary of its declaration, incidentally, falls today - by an attack by Pakistan, China or the US? Internal oppressors are easier to tackle than powerful occupying forces.
Regime change through external aggression in volatile regions leads to chaos that radiates outside and engulfs distant shores. We saw that with Iraq and Libya. Regime change through internal resistance is something else - the resistance is ready to take charge.
India should find the self-interest, if not moral courage, to speak out against imperial aggression, and uphold the banner of principled international relations.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
You may also like
GAP's kids clothing sale with cut price Disney, Barbie and more for summer holidays
Cost of living crisis isn't over as one in four 'struggle' to make ends meet
EU seaside town dubbed 'little Monaco' with posh harbour 3 hours from UK
Arsenal hold 'positive' Rodrygo talks with club dealt £85m transfer reality
Ex-Man Utd star Paul Pogba drops transfer bombshell in fresh twist to saga
