A tale of two silences: Why India's Ukraine vote abstention in the UN is different from that of China

Abstentions in a diplomatic vote are like silences in a conversation: Some denote slyness, some helplessness, some a stoic acceptance, and some a sort of confusion. It is in interpreting silences and abstentions, and the word that sits in the middle, 'reticence' that we need to understand India and China in the context of the painful first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

India and China have abstained, along with 30 other nations of the 193-member UN General Assembly, in the 141-7 vote in favour of the resolution that called for invoking principles of the United Nations charter underlying a "comprehensive, just and lasting peace" in Ukraine.

In plain-speak, Russia has certainly invaded Ukraine in violation of the UN charter that is against foreign intervention in a sovereign territory. Unlike the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan or the Reagan Administration in Granada in the 1970s and 80s, there is not even the figleaf of a pro-Moscow puppet government in Kyiv, where President Volodymyr Zelensky's popularity is not in doubt.

But you don't argue with military might, and that is what Vladimir Putin is showing in his relentless bombing of Ukraine.

But there are yet more buts in this game. 

Watch | Evaluating the Ukraine war, one year later

Ukraine has been pro-West for a while now, and its nationalism, bordering on white supremacy and getting closer to the European Union and NATO, was in strategic terms for Moscow an act of a threatening intervention in what used to be its territory a mere three decades ago.  Add to this the recognised presence of neo-Nazis in the grey Ukraine areas now under Russian control, and you had a recipe for belligerence from Moscow.

Also Read | Russia-Ukraine war anniversary: India's 'mature' geopolitical navigation amid pressure is in spotlight

The Ukraine tangle is quite different from an open-and-shut game as the US would have us believe. Grey areas of diplomacy and the fact that the US is only in effect promoting an arms race in a previously peaceful corner of Europe should make us even more worried.

Here is where we need to separate India's stoic silence from China's tactical one. With its own muscle-flexing in Taiwan, towards whom its guns point more often than not, Beijing has far less moral authority in playing peace broker. Given China's history in dealing with Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong, its abstention in the UNGA vote may well be an implicit bargaining chip in a mutual pact with Russia.

Look at the context. China's top diplomat Wang Yi met Putin in Moscow just a day ahead of the UNGA vote. One would be tempted to call the abstention of China in the vote as purely a tactical one even as it attempts to be a peace broker while lacking in credibility.

India's abstention oozes reticence. Given decades of having to deal with Pakistan on their Kashmir dispute, a superficial look might suggest a skeleton in New Delhi's cupboard, but when you consider that two-thirds of Kashmir is under Pakistani control, and India's Constitution is secular enough for it to have a legitimate hold over the Muslim majority region, there is more to the dispute than meets the superficial Western eye. India being a fairly transparent democracy despite having a strongman administration is also an undeniable fact.

Also Read | Ukraine war anniversary: 'We have not broken down, we will prevail,' says Ukrainian President Zelensky

India's abstention is one of helplessness in the face of Washington and Moscow trying to re-enact their Cold War conflict all over again in a new war zone. As a G-20 presidency holder, India now has to go beyond a balancing act in a clash between two lapsed superpowers. Here is where India's permanent representative to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, sounded credible on Friday at the UNGA when she said, "no solution can ever arrive at the cost of human lives".

Where is diplomatic justice in this messy puzzle? The answer should lie in Europe, not America or China. The European Union has the most skin in the game, and it is time for India and the EU to bilaterally arrive at a framework for peace that is humane, just and acceptable to all parties. My view is that the US and its allies are overdoing the warmongering, thus preventing any honourable peace formula from emerging on the horizon.

Where is Track Two diplomacy in all this? There is barely any evidence of confabulations of any kind that would nudge Putin to the negotiating table. Perhaps India could team up with the EU to do something on those lines, maybe bring in Nobel peace prize winners or credible human rights groups into the conversation. What is clear is that a silence that smells of credibility is better than one that looks like an act of collusion.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE