India’s unbounded consideration for U. S. concerns has been a hallmark of its foreign policy over the decades, especially after the May 1998 nuclear tests. But this did not come in the way of the Narendra Modi government abstaining from a vote on Iran’s nuclear activities at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors in Vienna on June 8. Two other countries (Pakistan and Libya) also abstained, while China and Russia voted against the resolution. There are 35 countries on the board, and the rest, including the U. S., which brought the resolution, the U. K. and France, voted for it.
Standing up
Coming as it does in the wake of India standing up to Europe and the U.S. on the issue of oil purchases from Russia, the caution displayed by the Modi government on Iran is in sharp contrast to the dramatic vote cast by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s officials against Iran on the nuclear issue in September 2005. Two other pro-West votes followed in what became a litmus test on how far India would go in its tilt towards the U.S.
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian’s New Delhi visit coincided with India’s abstention from the IAEA vote, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tweeted on June 8, “Our relations have mutually benefited both the countries and have promoted regional security and prosperity.”
It is one thing to meet a minister from a “difficult” country, but it’s quite another to say that Iran has promoted regional security. Some analysis of Mr. Modi’s remarks would have been attempted in Western capitals, especially Washington, D.C., which is going full throttle against Russia after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
In the current international climate and given the Western media narrative, sounding a slightly different chord on what’s going on in Ukraine, or pointing to the lack of dialogue channels between Russia and Europe/U.S., amounts to “support” for the Russian invasion.
Space for an independent perspective
Though India is part and parcel of the U.S.-led alliances on both its eastern and western flanks – tie-ups that have become full-blown under Prime Minister Modi – the vote on Iran, like the approach to taking a non-condemnatory route on Ukraine, has shown that a degree of strategic independence is possible.
Looking back at India’s September 24, 2005, vote against Iran, the stakes were much higher then. It cost India a 25-year deal for the purchase from Iran of 5.5 million tonnes of LNG annually, valued then at $21 billion.
Domestically, the Prime Minister Singh alienated his Left allies, who had been given to understand, contrary to news reports, that India would not abandon Iran at the IAEA, and eventually led to their withdrawal of support to his government over the India-U.S. nuclear deal.
During a meeting with a U.S. Congressional delegation in February 2010, then National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon said, “Iran was ‘hopping mad’ over India’s votes and Iranian Foreign Minister Motakki ‘blew up’ at former National Security Advisor Narayanan during his last visit to Delhi.”
According to Mr. Menon’s comments, contained in a U.S. cable on the meeting posted on the Wikileaks website, “the last thing that we (India) want is another nuclear power (Iran) in our neighbourhood”. Such comments are at considerable variance with what Mr. Modi had to say about Iran (and India) promoting regional security and prosperity.
The Wikileaks cable is a rare insight into what is actually said behind closed doors. These remarks, it has to be said, were only intended for American ears and not for wider consumption. That said, they are very much in the public domain.
The domestic angle
Today’s India has its own compulsions, especially on the energy front given the global polarisation of positions around the Ukraine war. The Modi government is also facing flak from the Gulf nations, including Iran, on the insulting remarks made by the ruling party’s spokespersons against Prophet Mohammed. If such behaviour in the BJP and remarks by government ministers goes unchecked, India’s relations with Gulf nations could be in peril.
In today’s uncertain world, India has the opportunity and the clout to pursue an independent foreign policy in the interest of its people. The departure from follow-the-leader default position on Ukraine and the vote on Iran are welcome, but there is a long distance to travel down this road.
Energy security must be one of the guiding principles of this independent foreign policy — as should food security. These goals are not negotiable and must not be sacrificed for the sake of any alignment with the West.
If it is the tightrope that India must walk on foreign policy, so be it. You just can’t afford to falter.
