NEW DELHI – In a surprising turn, Indian Congress leader Shashi Tharoor conceded Tuesday that his initial criticism of India’s neutral stance on the Russia-Ukraine war was misplaced. Speaking at the Raisina Dialog in New Delhi, Tharoor admitted his misjudgment, stating that India’s current policy positions it to perhaps influence a lasting peace in the region.

Tharoor acknowledged that the policy adopted by India following the outbreak of the conflict meant that the country has actually a prime minister who can hug both the president of Ukraine and the president in Moscow two weeks apart and be accepted in both places.

I am still wiping the egg off my face because I was one of the few in the parliamentary debate who criticised India’s position back in February 2022.

Shashi Tharoor, Raisina Dialogue, New Delhi

This admission marks a significant shift in Tharoor’s perspective, notably given his earlier vocal opposition to India’s approach.

The Initial Criticism and Underlying Principles

In the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Tharoor, a prominent voice in Indian politics and a former Minister of State for External Affairs, voiced strong disapproval of India’s reluctance to explicitly condemn Russia’s aggression.His criticism, he explained, stemmed from deeply held principles rooted in international law and India’s own history.

Tharoor elaborated that his concerns were based on “well-established principles, such as the violation of the UN charter, the principle of inviolability of borders, and Ukraine’s sovereignty.” He further emphasized that India has “historically opposed the use of force to resolve international disputes, and all these principles were breached by one party, which should have been condemned.” This stance reflects a long-standing commitment to peaceful conflict resolution, a principle often invoked in U.S. foreign policy as well.

A Change of Heart: Pragmatism and Potential Peacemaking

Three years into the conflict, Tharoor now sees a strategic advantage in india’s non-aligned position. He suggests that maintaining open communication channels with both Russia and Ukraine has uniquely positioned India on the global stage.

He acknowledged that the policy now seems to have been validated, as India’s prime minister was able to maintain good relations with both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders.

Tharoor’s revised assessment highlights India’s potential as a mediator. He argues that India’s “global standing and its geographical distance from Europe” provide it with a distinct advantage in facilitating dialogue. This echoes historical examples where neutral nations, like Switzerland, have played crucial roles in international peace negotiations.Such as, the U.S. has frequently enough relied on countries with established relationships with adversarial nations to act as intermediaries, such as Switzerland’s role in facilitating communications with Iran.

India as a Peacekeeper: A Viable Option?

Looking ahead, Tharoor speculated on India’s potential role in a post-conflict scenario. He suggested that India could be open to sending peacekeepers to Ukraine, particularly given Russia’s likely resistance to peacekeepers from NATO countries.

“Speaking as an Indian parliamentarian,I don’t think there would be significant resistance to that idea,” Tharoor stated.

However, deploying peacekeepers is a complex undertaking. The U.S. experiance in peacekeeping operations, such as in the Balkans, demonstrates the challenges involved in maintaining stability in conflict zones. Factors such as the mandate of the peacekeeping force, the level of local support, and the commitment of participating nations are crucial to success. The opposition in 2003 when India was asked to send troops to Iraq after the American invasion serves as a reminder of the domestic sensitivities surrounding such deployments.

Tharoor addressed potential concerns by clarifying that he didn’t foresee similar resistance for ukraine, and if peace were reached, India might consider contributing peacekeepers.He also highlighted India’s long-standing commitment to global stability, citing the country’s participation in over 49 peacekeeping missions.

Analyzing the Shift and Potential Implications

Tharoor’s shift reflects a broader debate within India regarding its role in the evolving global order. while some advocate for closer alignment with Western democracies, others emphasize the importance of strategic autonomy and non-alignment. India’s historical ties with Russia, particularly in defense cooperation, further complicate the situation.

For the united States, india’s potential peacemaking role presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, a stable and peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is in the interest of the U.S. and its allies.India’s involvement could potentially de-escalate tensions and create a pathway for dialogue. On the other hand, the U.S. and India may have differing perspectives on the long-term security architecture in europe and the appropriate balance of power.

India’s potential participation in peacekeeping efforts could be a valuable asset. The U.S. military,frequently enough stretched thin across multiple global hotspots,could benefit from the support of experienced peacekeepers from other nations. Though, ensuring interoperability and coordination between diffrent peacekeeping forces is crucial. For example,the U.S.military’s experience in Afghanistan highlighted the challenges of working with diverse international partners.

Ultimately, the success of India’s peacemaking efforts will depend on several factors, including the willingness of Russia and Ukraine to engage in meaningful negotiations, the level of support from the international community, and India’s own ability to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape.

India’s Peacekeeping Experience: A Brief Overview

counterarguments and Considerations

While Tharoor’s revised stance and the potential for Indian peacekeeping are noteworthy, it’s crucial to acknowledge potential counterarguments. Some critics might argue that India’s neutrality has inadvertently emboldened Russia and that a stronger condemnation of Russian aggression would have been more effective.

Moreover, relying on countries like India, which maintain close ties with Russia, for peacekeeping operations could raise concerns about impartiality. Ensuring transparency and accountability would be paramount to maintaining the credibility of any such mission.The U.S. experience with the UN’s Human Rights Council, where member states with questionable human rights records often wield significant influence, serves as a cautionary tale.

Conclusion

Shashi Tharoor’s evolving perspective on India’s role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict underscores the complexities of navigating a rapidly changing world. While his initial criticism reflected a commitment to principle, his current view acknowledges the potential for pragmatism and strategic engagement. Whether India can successfully leverage its unique position to facilitate peace remains to be seen, but its potential involvement warrants close attention from policymakers in the United States and around the globe.