Taking sides in conflict: Delhi’s past record tells a complicated story |
One of the more surprising elements of the unfolding Indian debate on the war in the Middle East is the concern — if not anguish — that India has “tilted to one side” in the current Gulf war. For a section of the commentariat, the essence of Indian foreign policy is, and ought to be, a refusal to take sides in conflicts between other states.
That idea aligns with the traditional notion of neutrality. In the early decades after Independence, however, Delhi was at pains to argue that its doctrine of non-alignment was not neutrality. India did not avoid taking positions; rather, it claimed the right to form them on the merits of each issue — based on independent judgement rather than bloc loyalty.
In practice, India’s record tells a more complicated story. Delhi has often taken sides — sometimes vehemently, sometimes defensively, and sometimes only implicitly. There have also been moments when India simply flip flopped as governments changed.
It has been relatively easy for India’s political and intellectual establishment to adopt strong moral positions when the offender was the United States or the West. This habit was part of what Shashi Tharoor once described as India’s tradition of offering a “running moral commentary” on world affairs.
The anti-Western reflex had deeper roots. Part of it reflected the lingering residue of anti-colonial sentiment. Part of it was grounded in Delhi’s genuine Cold War contradictions with Washington — over Pakistan, Kashmir, and nuclear non-proliferation.
India’s moral clarity, however, tended to blur when Moscow transgressed norms that India supported. That ambivalence was visible in Delhi’s muted responses to the Soviet invasions of Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Afghanistan (1979),........