Calling out the culprit

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is nearing towards completing a week and there are no clear signs of end to the despotic violence yet. Russia's onslaught against Ukraine is undoubtedly a gross violation of international principles. While almost the entire world stands by Ukraine, at least morally, some nations are still finding it hard to take a clear stand against Putin's Russia. Shockingly, India — a flagbearer of democracy in the world — is one among the list of these countries. India abstained from voting against Russia at UNSC resolution seeking to deplore Russian invasion of Ukraine on Friday. Ironically, the resolution was vetoed by Russia, the aggressor itself. It just shows how inefficient the UNSC becomes when it comes to standing against despotic action of its permanent members, and how inequitable and undemocratic the global body has been all throughout. Certainly, the outcome would have been entirely different in case the aggressor was a non-p5 member country. While failing of the resolution just because Russia had vetoed it is a mockery of international principles and the organization, no less worrying is the fact that certain countries have failed to condemn Russian actions — even though it wouldn't have overturned the veto. India again abstained from voting for a rare UN General Assembly meeting — held only 10 times previously — at UNSC. Essentially, when the UNSC fails to pass a resolution due to vetoing by any of the five permanent members, there is a provision for calling an emergency UNGA meeting with at least nine UNSC votes in support, without veto. The UNGA consists of representatives of the 193 members of the UN. UNGA resolutions are relatively more complex and inclusive than that of UNSC but, ironically, these are non-binding on member countries. It however has immense 'political' weight. At the UNGA session, the Ukrainian Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya said that "If Ukraine does not survive ... international peace will not survive". These are strong words indeed. In response, the Russian representative Vassily Nebenzia reverberated Putin's baseless rhetoric of Ukrainian atrocities in Donbas region. He said that "the hostilities were unleashed by Ukraine against its own residents, the residents of Donbass and all of those who are dissenters. Russia is seeking to end this war." How much weight these arguments hold is a fact well-known to the world! The dismal fact that a despotic nation is allowed the luxury of playing with words when an entire nation is engulfed in an undue war and the Eurasian region is destabilized as a whole, is indicative of the gross misuse of Russia's geopolitical influence. Indian permanent representative S Trimurti said that "India is deeply concerned that the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate. We reiterate our call for immediate cessation of violence and end to hostilities," adding that there is "no other choice but to return to the path of diplomacy." Apparently, India abstains from clearly calling out Russia for its excesses. India is right in its emphasis on ending the war through dialogue but the concept of dialogue itself appears to be slightly vague here. It needs to be reflected upon whether the Russian invasion is solely about the two parties in direct confrontation? What have been the external influences towards initiating and perpetuating the war? Clearly, the dialogue and diplomacy will have to be multipronged — which, given the tense circumstances, can break or make the moment and will also be time consuming. Such a wide-ranging deliberation may be important for creasing out the differences in a slightly longer perspective but the need of the hour is immediate cessation of conflict. When India calls for such cessation, it appears to put equal onus on both Ukraine and Russia. Isn't there a need to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim? Russia has greater control over the war and the time has come when India should call it out in clearer terms. India must remember the BRICS resolution passed last year in New Delhi that despised the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". India's dilemma of securing its national interest is understandable but, at a certain point, that needs to be balanced with lofty democratic credentials that the country holds. While national interest should be a driving factor behind how a country interacts with other nations, its outlook and global standing is also dependent on the values it stands for. If India acts with its spines intact, even Russia will value it in the longer run.