The West ought to work with India to help with alternative sourcing of fertilizer.
Our conflict with Pakistan exists because the US wants to hold back India's progress and needs an excuse to interfere in the indian sub-continent. The US is still one of the consistent arm suppliers of Pakistan that has mostly always been used against India (3+ wars and counting). This despite the fact that India is a flourishing democracy that respects western values, while Pakistan has had many dictators over the last 5+ decades. Even during the Bangladesh liberation wars, the US threatened India by sending its nuclear fleet to force it to back down. They have consistently created hurdles or denied us access to technology to cripple our defence research and development (once even offering major concessions to Russia so to deny us technology transfer of cryogenic engines used in rockets and missiles). And yet, despite the underlying US suspicion and hostility against India, we have progressed and earned the goodwill of the international community on our own merits.
(And I won't even get into the geo politics of what it means for India to be under the political sphere of control of Russia ...).
[..] India abstained from voting against Russia today at the UN. Many in India are criticizing India for this action. There is one reason...
50 years ago, in Dec 1971, the USA threatened India to stop the 1971 war. An alarmed India sent a SOS to the Soviet Union. A story that has been nearly erased from Indian history books.
When Pakistan's defeat in the 1971 war seemed imminent, Kissinger spurred Nixon to send the US 7th Fleet’s Task Force, led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, to the Bay of Bengal. The USS Enterprise, at 75,000 ton, was the world's largest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the 1970s with more than 70 fighter aircraft. A monster. The Indian Navy’s fleet was led by the 20,000-ton aircraft carrier, Vikrant, with 20 light fighter aircraft.
The USS Enterprise was being dispatched to secure American citizens in Bangladesh was the official American statement. Unofficially it was to threaten the Indian forces and prevent the liberation of East Pakistan. India soon got another bad news.
Soviet intelligence reported to India that a powerful British naval group led by the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle with commando carrier HMS Albion, several destroyers and other ships were approaching India's territorial waters from the west, towards the Arabian Sea. The British and the Americans planned a coordinated pincer attack to intimidate India: the British ships in the Arabian Sea will target India's western coast, while the Americans would make a dash to Chittagong. Caught between the British & the American ships was the Indian Navy.
It was December 1971, and the world’s two leading democracies were now threatening the world’s largest democracy. An SOS from Delhi was sent to Moscow. The Red Navy soon dispatched 16 Soviet naval units and six nuclear submarines from Vladivostok to block USS Enterprise.
Admiral N. Krishnan, the chief of the Eastern Command of the Indian Navy, wrote in his book, 'No Way But Surrender' that he was afraid that the Americans will reach Chittagong. He mentions how they even thought of attacking Enterprise, in a do or die move, to slow it down.
On December 2nd week 1971, the US 7th Fleet’s Task Force, led by the monstrous USS Enterprise arrived in the Bay of Bengal. The British fleet was arriving in the Arabian Sea. The world held its breath.
But, unknown to the Americans, the submerged Soviet submarines had overtaken them.
As USS Enterprise moved towards East Pakistan, the Soviet submarines surfaced without any warning. The Soviet subs were now standing between India and the US naval force.
The Americans were shocked.
Admiral Gordon told the 7th American Fleet Commander: "Sir, we are too late. The Soviets are here!"
Both the American and British fleets backed off. Today, most Indians have forgotten about this colossal naval chess battle between the two superpowers in the Bay of Bengal[..]
It was the height of cold war politics, and initially the Soviets too weren't too warm to India's overture towards it in the 1960's and preferred to court Pakistan instead because it knew the US was using it to open channels to China. (USSR and China at that time didn't share a good relationship). It was only after indian diplomats convinced the Soviets that Pakistan had firmly allied with the west, that they decided a closer friendship with India would be more desirable.
The Indo-Soviet relationship reached the peak just before the Bangladesh Liberation war, when both signed the "Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation". It was the first time India had swung away so far from it's non-aligned policy of not siding with a world power during the cold war. Anticipating that the US (and maybe even China) would take some military action against India when they attacked Pakistan, Mrs. Indira Gandhi reached out to the Soviets who were delighted that the Indians were ready to "abandon" their non-aligned policy by signing the treaty. Article IX of the treaty said:
> ‘In the event of either Party being subjected to an attack or a threat thereof, the High Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into mutual consultations to remove such threat and to take appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and security of their countries’.
USSR cited this treaty to warn US and China that it bound them to come to India's military defence, even as Nixon was encouraging China to attack India and assured them of US support. (It's interesting that even as India was considering how to deal with the refugee crisis from East Pakistan, even the Soviets told them that it wasn't in favour of breaking up Pakistan).
Later, when these treaties were renewed, this clause was removed.
Ironically, today, Sino-Russian treaties include this clause. And that means, if India and China go to war, India may also have to fight the Russians!
The only way I can make the pieces fit together is to say that somehow Russia is the part of the Soviet Union that matters and Ukraine was a sort of colony. In which case India now takes the side of the coloniser (and would-be re-coloniser) against the former (and perhaps future) colony. That's real friendship.
Look at how India walks a tightrope while managing its relationship with the super powers USA and Russia and emerging power China. Whenever any of these countries raise security concern about the other, we weigh our own positions realistically and carefully (both security concerns and our own soft and hard power) and then try to balance that while trying to address the concerns raised. And that's why today we are part of both BRICS, which is seen as an anti-west organisation, while also being part of the Quad, which is perceived as an anti-China and anti-Russia outfit. At the same time India knows it needs to be economically and militarily self-reliant, and has never ignored that aspect and thus has military relationships with both the US and Russia, and economic relationship with all three.
People mock our non-aligned foreign policy, but the far-sightedness of not allying with any super power continues to serve India very well even today, and something that the Ukrainians need to understand and embrace too. If they play their card well, they could very well replace Russia as the major power in that area, with the right leadership and patience.
What do you think India should do?
Or they can risk it all to prop up a dictator.
Russia is 17 million square kilometers, while India is 3 million. Russia is 5-6 times as large.
That's 50-60 times the density.
Flow of natural resources out of Russia into India is the natural state of things. I do think India ought to decouple, but it's not that easy. The economic hit will be large.
The West should take some of that hit. Without the US and Canada stepping in, India can't decouple from Russia. Both sides ought to know that, and cooperate.
It's because of the number of people that there's a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Skilled labour is almost half the price in India, $7kpa vs $13kpa (old Russian XR). Secondary materials like steel are 80% the price in India. Harvest materials like cotton and rubbers come from India in the first place.
I'm not suggesting that the process would be free or fast or painless, but risking sanctions for something that could be in-housed for a relatively small in-house fee, and long term savings seems like a stupid thing to do. India needs an external market more than anything; certainly more than spare parts.
Seems like we are fast approaching the day when Anglo emperor has no clothes.
Not at all. It is a perfectly understandable tactical move in support of a "neutral" strategy in the current Russian/Ukrainian War. There is a lot of History and Relationship here which cannot be denied.