India can ensure Ukraine at the table

Topic: GS2 – International Relations

Context

● The United States and Russia are holding high-level negotiations over Ukraine’s future without Ukraine’s participation, raising concerns about historical injustices and great power dominance.

 Analysis of the news:

Ukraine’s Exclusion and India’s Partition

• The ongoing negotiations between the United States and Russia regarding Ukraine’s future, without Ukraine’s participation, echo painful historical experiences for India.
• The scenario starkly reminds India of the colonial arrogance exhibited during its own Partition in 1947.
• Britain, in its hasty withdrawal, arbitrarily drew borders without considering the human and geopolitical implications, leading to long-term strife and suffering.
• For India, Ukraine’s exclusion represents not just a diplomatic oversight but a deep historical injustice.
• The recurring theme is clear: powerful nations continue to determine the futures of smaller states, disregarding their sovereignty and right to self-determination.

Lessons from History: Peace Without Justice Is Temporary

• India’s historical perspective underscores that peace agreements lacking justice only serve as temporary solutions.
• The article draws attention to former US President Donald Trump’s “peace deal” with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which effectively became a withdrawal agreement.
• This led to the collapse of Afghan democracy and the erasure of two decades of progress, especially affecting women, minorities, and dissidents.
• The parallel drawn to Ukraine suggests that Trump’s concessions to Russia — which reportedly exclude Ukraine — are not genuine peace efforts but geopolitical surrenders.
• Such an approach rewards aggression and violates international law, potentially destabilizing Europe and undermining the very concept of positive peace.

India’s Empathy: A Shared Struggle for Sovereignty

• India’s history of fighting for sovereignty and dignity resonates with Ukraine’s current struggle.
• The Indian independence movement aimed to reclaim self-determination from imperial powers that viewed India merely as a strategic pawn.
• Today, Ukraine finds itself in a similar position — fighting for its existence as a sovereign state and for its people’s right to live without fear.
• The article compares Britain’s careless partitioning of India to the Trump administration’s reported plans for Ukraine, where critical decisions are made without consulting the people most affected.
• For India, supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty is a matter of principle tied to its own historical experiences of colonial injustice.

India’s Strategic Role: A Four-Point Diplomatic Approach

The text outlines a pragmatic four-point strategy for India to ensure Ukraine’s inclusion in peace negotiations:

1. Leveraging Multilateral Forums:

India can utilize platforms such as BRICS, IBSA, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to collectively demand Ukraine’s participation in negotiations. Quiet diplomatic pressure on Moscow can underscore that an unjust peace will lead to prolonged instability, affecting Russia’s own strategic standing.

 

2. Engaging Gulf Partners:

With strong ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both involved in global peace efforts, India can stress Ukraine’s presence in discussions. As a major energy importer, India can collaborate with Gulf states to highlight the link between a stable Ukraine and global economic security.

 

3. Utilizing Influence at Global Platforms:

India’s prominent voice at the United Nations General Assembly, Security Council, and G20 summits gives it a platform to publicly oppose any settlement that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty. India’s stance here would be crucial in shaping global narratives around the conflict.

 

4. Exercising Economic and Defense Leverage:

India’s significant arms purchases from Russia and robust trade relations with Western nations provide substantial leverage. India can condition its cooperation on a fair resolution that respects Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence.

The Cost of Compromise: Peace Without Justice Is No Peace

• The analysis warns that any peace deal lacking justice, accountability, and strategic security is inherently flawed.
• Conceding Ukrainian territory to Russia would merely pause hostilities, setting the stage for future conflicts.
• The article draws a strong comparison with India’s post-Partition struggles, suggesting that just as arbitrary borders in 1947 sowed the seeds for Indo-Pakistani tensions, an unfair Ukraine settlement could lead to prolonged European instability.
• India’s own historical battle against colonial injustices makes it morally and strategically imperative for the nation to oppose any resolution that compromises Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Conclusion: Preventing the Return of Imperialism

• In conclusion, the exclusion of Ukraine from critical negotiations is more than a diplomatic misjudgment — it is a dangerous return to imperialist practices.
• The article stresses that allowing powerful nations to dictate the destinies of weaker ones without accountability risks plunging the world back into an era of colonial domination.
• For India, still grappling with the wounds of its own Partition, supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination is not only a strategic choice but also a moral responsibility.
• Failure to include Ukraine could trap Europe in another prolonged period of conflict and instability, a fate that India, given its historical context, understands all too well.
• The world must heed these lessons and ensure that history does not repeat itself.

Practice Question:  Discuss the implications of excluding smaller nations from negotiations concerning their own sovereignty, with reference to the United States-Russia talks on Ukraine and the historical context of India’s Partition. (150 Words /10 marks)

 

If you like this Indian Editorial Analysis don’t forget to check previous –RBI Rupee Challenge What You Need to Know About This Game Changer