Modi’s peacemaking role in Ukraine

The fact that Modi has gone to Ukraine – the first by an Indian prime minister since the country broke from the USSR and became independent in 1991 – is itself a rebuke to Putin.

• Amit Roy
• 02 September, 2024

By: Amit Roy

NARENDRA Modi’s recent visit to Ukraine is the most important foreign policy initiative the Indian prime minister has undertaken.

For a moment I put to one side the critical comment from the opposition Congress party spokesman, Jairam Ramesh, who wondered why Modi could not visit the troubled state of Manipur in north-east India “when he is travelling all the world trying to play the role of peacemaker”.

On BBC World Service, Tim Franks, presenter of News Hour, asked an Indian diplomat why Modi had travelled to Moscow and embraced Vladimir Putin on the very day Russian missiles had hit a children’s hospital in Ukraine.

I took note of the India’s foreign minister S Jaishankar telling a western reporter at a press conference in Delhi that “this may not be part of your culture, but embracing people is part of Indian culture. Narendra Modi also embraced president Volodymyr Zelensky on his visit to Ukraine.”

It is unlikely Franks and other presenters will ask western politicians why they are going to Tel Aviv to meet Benjamin Netanyahu while the Israelis are slaughtering children in Gaza.
The crucial question worth asking is: “Can Modi really play the role of peacemaker in bringing the Ukraine war to an end?”

This is something I discussed in the early days of the war.

For strategic reasons, the Indian government feels it cannot break with Russia which has been a steadfast ally over the decades. It remains in the Indian collective memory that when America sided with Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh war and tolerated Pakistani genocide in Dhaka, Russia stood by India.

India has been buying cheap Russian oil because it is in India’s economic interest to do so. It is conveniently forgotten that western countries are spending more money buying Russian gas because it is in their economic interests to do so. People can’t be left to shiver in winter (although the Labour government believes an exception should be made for pensioners in Britain so that impoverished train drivers can make up to £100,000 a year with overtime).

The fact that Modi has gone to Ukraine – the first by an Indian prime minister since the country broke from the USSR and became independent in 1991 – is itself a rebuke to Putin.
In the joint statement issued after Modi’s talks with Zelenskyy, point 11 stated: “Prime Minister Modi reiterated the need for sincere and practical engagement between all stakeholders to develop innovative solutions that will have broad acceptability and contribute towards early restoration of peace. He reiterated India’s willingness to contribute in all possible ways to facilitate an early return of peace.”

The two leaders reiterated their readiness for further cooperation in upholding principles of international law, including the UN Charter, such as respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of states.

Point 32 said: “Prime Minister Modi thanked President Zelenskyy for the warm hospitality extended to him and his delegation during the visit and invited him to visit India at a mutually convenient opportunity.”

This is an invitation that Zelenskyy should accept immediately in order to build a momentum in any initiative India might be able to take.

The visit will bring home to Modi the devastation Russia has caused – one of these days someone should compare it with the damage Israel has caused in Gaza.

Modi was given a tour of Ukraine’s history museum where he watched an exhibition remembering all of the 570 Ukrainian children reported to have been killed since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. This would have been a sobering experience for the Indian prime minister. It’s one thing to read about all this in The Times of India, quite another to see what crimes the Russians have committed in Ukraine.

Modi said India had not been neutral in the war.

“Right from the first day our side was peace,” Modi argued, pointing out that he came from the land of Mahatma Gandhi, whose statue in Kyiv he also visited.

Modi said he was ready to work “as a friend” to bring about a peace deal. Most pertinently, he said he respected and supported Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

“It is our highest priority,” he said, adding that he had told Putin during their meeting in July that “problems cannot be resolved on the battlefield”. The war could only end through “dialogue and diplomacy”, Modi stressed.

For his part, Zelenskyy thanked his visitor for “supporting our sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

Can Modi help to end the war?

It seems unlikely at this stage, but the Indian prime minister ought to engage in Kissinger-style shuttle diplomacy. At least, he has access to Putin which western leaders don’t. It is also in India’s interest to bring peace to Ukraine because the purchase of Russian oil has led to tensions with the west.

As things stand, Putin appears to believe he will prevail militarily over Ukraine in the long run because his is a much larger country with greater resources. Modi’s task is to convince him that the price he is paying for victory is too high.

 

Suella for Sangita

While regular LBC presenter James O’Brien has been holiday, his stand-in for three hours turned out to be a surprise choice: Suella Braverman.

On social media, there was a comment that I, too, would have made: “You got rid of Sangita and put this woman on. It’s baffling.”

The reference was to Sangita Myska who was sacked as presenter for reasons that have yet to be explained by LBC, although many listeners believe her robust questioning of an Israeli government spokesman was probably the reason for her dismissal.

In marked contrast, one of the main questions Suella asked was whether the UK was giving enough support to Israel. She also kept on referring to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations as “hate marches”.

Let me begin by saying Suella was surprisingly good in snatches. She is easier on the ear than O’Brien who tends to engage in long monologues.

But, then, Suella would spoil it all by being sweetly reasonable in being totally unreasonable: “I think Israel has a right to defend itself. And in war, sadly women and children get killed. You tell me if you disagree with me?”

Those were roughly her sentiments.

On Israel, her extremist views clearly did not reflect those of the majority of her listeners. Some said her question should have been: “Is the British government giving too much support to Israel?”

People who had taken part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations rang in to say they had not taken part in “hate marches”.

But on some issues, Suella was quite impressive. She suggested that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, might have to do a U-turn on her decision to cancel winter fuel payments.

She also dismissed Labour’s argument it needs to increase taxes because it had discovered a £22 billion hole in the economy.

It says a great deal for Suella that I, as an ordinary member of the public, did not switch off during her three-hour stint. Part of that is the fascination of listening to someone you know to be a bit mad. Some listeners prefaced their question by saying something like: “You are clearly an intelligent woman but…..”

Perhaps someone should have pointed out that had her immigration policies been in force when her parents arrived in Britain, she, Suella, would not have been born in this country. It could be that Suella is not playing up the far right of the Conservative Party and Nigel Farage’s Reform.

It’s possible she believes in the policies that she promotes. She strikes me as being a female version of Jekyll and Hyde.