During His Visit to Ukraine, Modi Should Adopt the Morally Correct Position

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will reportedly visit Ukraine on 23 August.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 

(Photo: PTI)

As India’s Independence Day festivities subside, we remember the sacrifices and the dual forces of Bhagat Singh-style freedom fighters, and Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience, as India shook the shackles of British rule in order to live as a sovereign, independent Bharat.

From the Red Fort ramparts of 1947 “tryst with destiny” to the 2024 hosting of the G20, India has made great strides forward towards becoming a global economic, political and international trade powerhouse. India’s actions on the global stage are watched closely by nations beyond our borders as India has, through its diplomatic engagement, soft cultural power, and geopolitical acumen, embraced its newfound position as a global, neutral great power player.

Given his carefully constructed position on the world stage, Prime Minister Modi has been no stranger to having to navigate India through turbulent international waters on many fronts. With an overwhelming focus on China and the economic and military threats it poses, Modi’s foreign policy has been dominated by aggressive braggadocio while maintaining seeming ‘neutrality’ towards superpowers and global struggles. 

India’s position on the conflict in Ukraine, however, remains one of the most complicated demonstrations of this robust defensiveness of self-interest while also keeping values such as humanitarian engagement, a seeming conflict that will be brought into sharp focus as his likely visit to Kyiv nears later this month. Given the focus of this conflict from world leaders and global media, India’s view of the Ukrainian struggle and PM Modi’s choice of rhetoric whilst in the country, could play a key role in positioning India as a ‘big boy arbiter’ to the conflict.

India’s relationship with both sides of the conflict positions Modi as potentially a critical global figure with diplomatic leverage that few other leaders possess. India’s continued relations with Russia continue to serve its interests, particularly in oil, defence, nuclear tech, and nuclear energy. India's foreign oil imports benefit from discounts on the price due to global sanctions on Russia. This is advantageous for India and, to some extent, even facilitates exports to Europe after refining the crude. This approach helps sidestep questions about the origin of the oil for the EU.

Strategically though, this upcoming visit to Ukraine brings sharp relief to India’s image as well as to Ukrainian leadership teams who were deeply concerned to see the images from Moscow showing the Indian Prime Minister embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin while Okhmatdyt, the children’s cancer hospital in the centre of Kyiv, was brutally bombed. The warmth Modi received in Moscow, raised serious concerns in Ukraine about India’s global position on this conflict and new questions arose as to whether India had abandoned the ideals of supporting global self-determination and freedom from imperialism, whether it be European or Russian, Western or Chinese, for which it was so highly regarded for.

Many still remember the warmth and integrity with which India has supported the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans, many African countries including Nelson Mandela against apartheid, and even Palestine as it balanced its path to growth with an ethical global standing for a third way away from realism versus idealism.  This same warmth must be extended to the Ukrainian leadership and people who, in a way, are fighting for their independence and have spent the last two-and-a-half years suffering unimaginable atrocities as they fight against an imperial attack from their eastern neighbour.  

Thus, during his visit, PM Modi must take the opportunity to use India’s diplomatic standing to help start a high-level path to peace as the world looks to put into motion a process to bring an end to the conflict.  

Dispelling a False Narrative 

Given the location of the war, and the key military aid backers of Ukraine, many of those not directly engaged on either side of the conflict may look at this as a proxy war for American interests where Ukrainians are dying while the Europeans and the Americans are providing weapons.  That is not the case here and it must be dispelled.

The attack on Ukraine started in 2014 with EuroMaidan protests for the Ukrainians wanting a very different future than what they had had since the fall of the Berlin Wall.  In November of 2013, protests known as Euromaidan began in response to President Yanukovych's decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia. The aspirations of many young Ukrainians also didn’t align with the corrupt, kleptocratic regime under Yanukovych; Ukrainians want, like so many developing countries' citizens, a future with good ties to Europe where jobs, investments and personal growth mark their life stories; something very similar to India’s story where most young Indians want India to be more prosperous and growth-oriented.

In 2014, while Ukraine was weakened by the protests, Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea. They also attacked and occupied parts of the Donbas region (Donetsk, and Luhansk) thus destabilising a once-prosperous region of Ukraine.  The then US President Obama, didn’t support Ukraine militarily and instead set up a monitoring mission of the OSCE, a European consensus body, to monitor and report on the violations, thereby signalling weakness to the Russians about Western support for Ukraine.

It is important to note that there was no Western military support extended to Ukraine at this moment in time and one of the poorest nations in Eastern Europe, was essentially left to fend for itself against the collective might of the Russian Federation.

Fast forward to 24 February 2022, and the Russian Federation, under President Putin, once again attacked Ukraine, this time all parts of the country, including the capital, Kyiv.  Most of the world’s security analysts believed that Ukraine would fall within two weeks. Yet Ukraine stood and is still standing, firmly, on its own two feet, and even marching into Kursk to snatch Ukraine’s independence from its imperial neighbour as it shows a thing or two about bravery to its invader.  Yes, it requires support from any and all countries willing to stand with her.  In a way, the world owes it to Ukraine as Ukraine signed the NPT, along with Kazakhstan and Belarus, and gave up its nuclear weapons for security “assurances” in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by the US, Russia, Britain, China, and France. 

Make no mistake, this is a war for Ukraine’s independence fought by Ukrainians, and yes with support from all who want to support her.  But the same happened in, and for, India’s fight for independence, in the pre-1947 era, when India had the Ghadar Party and other movements supported from all over the world, including from the USA, Canada, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as the likes of Subhas Chandra Bose and others gathered everything needed for India’s independence.

For many in the US, the support for the war stems from a desire to support Ukrainians in their quest for freedom.  We, in India, on Independence Day, surely understand the price one pays for it and never wonder whether it was worth it. India’s struggles for independence continue to strike a chord with the people of Ukraine, and they take strength from the example Gandhi’s and Bhagat Singh’s India showed in gaining its own independence from British rule.

Modi must recognise the symbolic weight of his visit and provide the hope Ukrainian people seek - that a peaceful and just end can be in sight without necessitating the destruction of the foundations of Ukraine as a nation.  The wounds of the Partition were unjustified; we must never profess nor push a “land for peace” formula that deprives Ukraine in any way of its sovereign land.

The prime minister must also try and acknowledge that Russia’s invasion on 24 February 2022, was a planned and unprovoked strike to actually build upon Russian imperialistic ambitions. The idea that Russian-speaking people were being persecuted is both a logical fallacy and a figment of the Kremlin’s Ministry of Disinformation. As someone who lived and worked in Ukraine from 2016 to 2022, and as someone who speaks Russian, I can personally vouch that there was no persecution of Russians or Russian speakers in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself is a Russian speaker. Further making the Russian argument even more absurd is that Russia has been committing war crimes in border towns, especially against Russian-speaking Ukrainians and has been trying to bomb into oblivion cities like Kharkiv that are inhabited by Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

Thus, the logic of the invasion is as faulty as if on a proverbial tomorrow, India decides to invade Bangladesh or Nepal on the pretext of Hindi-speaking people in common.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and the ethical implications of such a phantasmagoric invasion, if it ever were to happen, would naturally make us the aggressor. Similarly, Russia here is the aggressor who attacked without any logic or reasoning, except for the imperialist vision of President Putin which he highlighted and wrote himself in a 7000-word essay on the Kremlin website, in July 2021. In this essay, he clearly laid out his desire to be the new “Pyotr or Peter the Great” and bend Ukraine to Russia’s will, imperiously denying Ukraine’s right to even exist as a nation.

This vision has been deeply rooted in the mindset of the Russian leader since the collapse of the Soviet Union. One only needs to look at the sentiments coming out of Russian state television presenters such as Vladimir Solovyov or Olga Skabeyeva, who refer to the war in Ukraine as a “holy war”, to understand that early Russian narratives of “Ukrainian liberation” are masking a more sinister objective of obliteration of the “Malaya Rus” or “Little Russia” as they call Ukraine, an ugly misnomer for a country that built its Church and nationhood before the Moscow Patriarchate was even born.    

The Human Cost of the War Beyond Ukraine’s Borders

Modi, in visiting the frontlines and some war-affected parts of Ukraine with President Zelenskyy, will undoubtedly see with his own eyes the horrors of war inflicted on the people of Ukraine. Families have been destroyed and cities have been turned to rubble. However, he should also acknowledge the wider, indirect global suffering brought about as a result of Putin’s war – an absence of women and children in Ukraine, and the carefree spirit of a once fast-liberalising country.

In Ukraine, Modi should also take this opportunity to speak to those who have lost everything in the face of great adversity but also celebrate the resilience of the Ukrainian people who are doing everything they can to reduce the global harm this war continues to cause.

In his visit to Moscow, Modi also brought up the absolutely disgusting tricks played on Indian “Dunki” travellers who were forced to fight for Russia. Those poor Indians from the northern state villages of India are still languishing. The friendship hasn’t yielded their release despite promises. 

If PM Modi is able to deepen his relationship with Ukraine, he may also gain the leverage to force Russia to release the hostages in exchange for some concessions.    

Ukraine’s Agriculture and World Hunger Donations

As Ukraine’s Global Ambassador for the Grain from Ukraine programme, I have personally noted how Ukraine’s agricultural sector has become an inspirational component of this effort. Since the start of the invasion, nearly 70 million people globally have been pushed into food insecurity as a result of Russia’s naval and ground destabilisation of Ukraine’s food exports.

President Putin’s ambitions are plain to see, as he works to exploit disrupted supplies to drive a wedge between nations of the Global South and Ukraine and sow the false narrative that the West is committing imperial attacks on “poor” Russia all the while being the bully nation committing imperial attacks on Ukraine.

Ukraine is effectively combatting Putin's wider agenda through the ‘Grain from Ukraine’ initiative established by President Zelenskyy in 2022. Through this programme, Ukraine exports vital food supplies, whilst under attack from the Russian Navy in the Black Sea to destinations most in need of food aid such as Sudan, Palestine, Yemen, Nigeria, and many others.  

PM Modi must also commend President Zelenskyy and Ukraine for doing their best to maintain global stability in agricultural markets, one that India also benefits from. It is my hope that he too will bear witness to the same resilience in the faces of the Ukrainian people that India showed ahead of our own independence. 

One doesn’t need to recall the WW II era as the Indian nation dealt with an imperially created famine while that other “cousin” of Putin, then UK PM Churchill, infamously hoarded grains in Britain, causing a man-made famine in Bengal. And when he was asked about the unethical nature of the hoarding, as millions were dying in India, he asked, “Has Gandhi died yet?”

Leveraging the Geopolitical Significance of Modi's Visit

Despite seeing Russia as a “dependable partner” in recent years, India’s moral standing is weakened and global neutrality damaged when we see PM Modi hugging President Putin while bombs drop on Kyiv, a position that, to use a Hindi phrase, “shobha nahi deta” (is not becoming of) for a country like India that holds such significant economic and geopolitical might.

To not recognise the moral right of Ukrainians to fight for their independence, betrays our own independence struggle’s spirit. Modi should adopt the morally correct position rightfully embraced by many nations with complete moral and diplomatic support for Ukraine’s struggle. Not using the right rhetoric and understanding the winds of global change, may have long-term damage to India’s own interests, once the war is over.

While many in the world understand that India faces immense challenges with Pakistan and China, we cannot allow our relations with China and Pakistan to prevent us from calling out what we believe is important for global peace. Maintaining a positive relationship with all sides, as well as outside parties such as the UK and US is understandable; however, ‘neutrality’ risks, in the face of heinous attacks on Ukrainian children and women, through our silence, is an endorsement of the deplorable actions of Putin.

Economic engagement and membership of the BRICS nations remain valuable to maintain positive relationships with a certain sphere of the world. But if we are to truly maintain an Indian style of leadership that is different from the bipolarity of the erstwhile Cold War era and one we seem to be doomed to repeat, we must not cut our links to those with a more grounded vision for a path to peace in Ukraine, than the one proposed by Russia. Modi and India must have the ambition to straddle both visions and provide leadership for peace whereby India helps Russia find normalcy in its relations with the West while taking Ukraine’s total and complete sovereignty, territorial integrity, security, and all manners of independence needs as sacred.

These are not farfetched dreams–in fact, this was part and parcel of our negotiations for Indian independence, and furthermore, our completely independent Republic of India status away from Dominion.  I believe Ukraine has similar aspirations, and indeed, a similar right to completely independent and sovereign nationhood, away from imperial dominion.

Modi Has the Power to Facilitate Political Adjudication With the Aggressor

India as a nation has grown increasingly sceptical of the liberal order. It is fundamentally a Western creation and perpetuated by those who once championed the ideals of colonial expansion, something that continues to leave its mark on the Global South. The liberal order does not marry with the ancient traditions of India, and the inalienable rights of the individual do not necessarily always align with the priorities of the state.

However, the duality of the Indian mentality is something that could be expressed in a way that allows a growing questioning of the global order, as Russia does, while also supporting nations like Ukraine who value the importance of state integrity, despite having a different outlook on the global order. Modi has the power to facilitate political adjudication with the aggressor of the conflict in Ukraine by understanding both sides of the leadership’s mentality.

In Ukraine, Modi will also see Ukraine’s deep appreciation for India’s people, culture, history, and way of life. He will go to a beautiful, lovely country where they generally think of India as a wise giant that can help emulate its success as it also fights for its own survival. Modi must acknowledge this mutual loving relationship during his visit.

India’s stance over the last 30 months of the conflict has also caused some rancour in Ukrainian minds about India, and the latter must try its hardest to provide some succour in terms of humanitarian and technical assistance while also deeply acknowledging Ukrainian suffering. This may also be important to ensure the safety and security of Indian students who may be returning to Ukrainian engineering and medical universities after the war, to complete their degrees.

In conclusion, PM Modi must not lack courage. He must promote the clarity of vision that India values state integrity and as such that Ukraine does not belong to the West or East but to itself.  When Modi returns from Ukraine, he will have seen the stark contrast between India’s festive Independence Day celebrations that he led from the Red Fort on 15 August, and those of Ukraine’s struggle for survival and the desire to celebrate their independence in all its forms, in much the same way.

It is my hope that, through his boldness and diplomatic tact, he will help Ukraine hold its own celebrations in the years to come.  

[The writer is an academic with extensive experience in leading initiatives in developing countries and a former holder of senior positions in the UN. He is a Goodwill Global Ambassador for President Zelenskyy’s Office, for the Grain from Ukraine programme. This is an opinion article and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.]