Subham Tripathy "Can moral diplomacy coexist with military preparedness and regional deterrence?"

I mean increasing purchases of Russian oil during their invasion on Ukraine is not exactly something that anyone in my region would call as "moral", as it looks like harshest and the most opportunistic realpolitik imaginable. While recent air raids on Pakistan look a bit more understandable, they may be a bit tricky to reconcile with "global peace narratives".

Who is India supposed to charm with with this "moral diplomacy"? Is it even external audience or more just nicely sounding stories for internal consumption?

Dear Marcin Piotr Walkowiak ,

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with my article and for raising critical questions that enrich this discussion. As a citizen from Poland, your perspective, shaped by proximity to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, offers valuable insight into how India’s foreign policy is perceived in the European context. I appreciate the opportunity to address your points and provide clarity on India’s approach, while also reflecting on the broader dynamics of global geopolitics.

You question whether India’s moral diplomacy can coexist with its military preparedness and regional deterrence, citing India’s increased Russian oil purchases during the Ukraine-Russia war and recent air raids on Pakistan (likely referring to Operation Sindoor). You also ask who India’s moral diplomacy seeks to charm; external or internal audiences. Let me address these points systematically, drawing on evidence and India’s philosophical traditions, while also highlighting inconsistencies in the European Union’s stance during the war to contextualize India’s actions.

Firstly, your concern about India’s Russian oil purchases is understandable, given Poland’s direct stake in the Ukraine conflict. However, it’s worth examining the EU’s own actions to understand the complexities of moral posturing in geopolitics. Despite imposing sanctions on Russia, EU nations have continued significant energy imports from Russia. In 2022, Europe purchased 43 billion cubic meters of Russian gas, 13 million tons of coal, and 17.5 million tons of oil, contributing billions to Russia’s economy. For instance, Germany, a vocal supporter of Ukraine, relied on Russian gas through Nord Stream pipelines until late 2022, while Hungary and others maintained energy ties with Moscow. These transactions, often justified as economic necessities, mirror the pragmatism you attribute to India’s oil purchases, yet they have faced less scrutiny in global discourse.

Dr. S. Jaishankar, India’s External Affairs Minister, incisively critiqued this double standard in 2022 at a Bratislava conference, stating, “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that its problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” This remark underscores how Europe’s expectation for India to align with its stance on Ukraine ignores India’s unique geopolitical realities, such as its dependence on Russian arms (over 50% of India’s defense platforms) and the need to counterbalance China’s regional influence. Jaishankar’s critique highlights a broader hypocrisy: while Europe demands global solidarity on Ukraine, it has historically overlooked India’s concerns, such as cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, urging restraint instead of action.

India’s approach to the Ukraine-Russia war is not opportunistic realpolitik but a principled stance rooted in its foreign policy of strategic autonomy and multi-alignment. India has consistently abstained from UN resolutions condemning Russia, not out of support for the invasion but to maintain diplomatic channels with both Moscow and Kyiv, advocating for dialogue over escalation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to Moscow and Kyiv in 2024, and NSA Ajit Doval’s briefings to President Putin, reflect India’s role as a potential mediator, conveying messages between the two sides. India’s increased oil imports (40% of Russia’s crude by June 2024) are driven by economic necessity, ensuring affordable energy for a developing nation of 1.4 billion, while also stabilizing global oil prices, a move tacitly supported by the US to cap Russia’s profits.

India’s neutrality aligns with its historical non-alignment doctrine, which prioritizes sovereignty and avoids entanglement in great power blocs. Unlike the EU, which views Ukraine as a buffer against Russia, India sees the conflict as a complex outcome of post-Soviet politics and NATO’s eastward expansion, as Jaishankar noted in France in 2022. By maintaining ties with Russia, India prevents Moscow from deepening strategic alignments with China or Pakistan, which would undermine India’s security. This pragmatic balance does not negate India’s commitment to peace; rather, it reflects a belief that diplomacy, not confrontation, is the path to resolution.

Secondly, regarding the air raids on Pakistan, I assume you refer to recently undergoing Operation Sindoor (2025), a targeted counter-terrorism operation following the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people. Unlike interstate wars, such as Ukraine-Russia, counter-terrorism operations address non-state actors operating across borders, often with state complicity. India’s actions were a response to Pakistan’s long-standing support for cross-border terrorism, a fact acknowledged globally but inadequately addressed by the EU, which urged restraint despite India’s repeated dossiers to Pakistan yielding no results. Operation Sindoor was not an assault on peace but a precise act of self-defense, aligning with India’s right to protect its citizens under international law.

This distinction between wars on terrorism and interstate conflicts is critical. The former targets illicit networks that thrive on destabilization, while the latter involves sovereign states with negotiable disputes. India’s counter-terrorism efforts, including Operation Sindoor, aim to deter future attacks, not escalate regional conflict, and are consistent with its peace narrative, which prioritizes security as a prerequisite for stability.

thirdly, your question about who India’s moral diplomacy seeks to charm is insightful. India’s diplomacy, rooted in its civilizational ethos of Ahimsa (non-violence) and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), targets both global and domestic audiences. Globally, it positions India as a voice of the Global South, advocating for equitable multilateralism and peace through forums like BRICS and the UN. Domestically, it reinforces national pride in India’s ethical statecraft, distinct from Western realpolitik. This duality is not mere rhetoric but a strategic blend of soft power and principled governance.

To address whether moral diplomacy can coexist with military preparedness, I draw on the Bhagavad Gita, which offers profound guidance on balancing duty and ethics. In Chapter 2, Verse 31, Lord Krishna advises Arjuna:

स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि। धर्म्याद्धि युद्धात् श्रेयोऽन्यत् क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यति॥ (Svadharma api chāvekṣhya na vikampitum arhasi, dharmyāddhi yudhāt śhreyo anyat kṣhatriyasya na vidyati.) Translation: “Considering your duty as a warrior, you should not waver. For a Kshatriya, there is nothing more noble than a righteous battle.”

This shloka underscores that moral duty (dharma) includes preparedness and, when necessary, righteous action to uphold justice. India’s military modernization and deterrence strategies, such as Operation Sindoor, are not antithetical to peace but ensure it by safeguarding sovereignty and stability. Moral diplomacy, in this context, is not pacifism but a commitment to ethical conduct in both peace and conflict.

At last, it can be said that, India’s foreign policy navigates a multipolar world where peace is not a standalone ideal but intertwined with security and national interests. While the EU’s energy purchases from Russia reflect pragmatic compromises, India’s actions, whether oil imports or counter-terrorism, stem from a similar need to balance ideals with realities. Dr. Jaishankar’s critique reminds us that global challenges require mutual understanding, not selective moralism. India’s moral diplomacy, informed by its philosophical heritage, seeks to shape a discourse of peace that is inclusive, pragmatic, and resilient.

I hope I address your concerns, Mr. Walkowiak, and I look forward to your thoughts.

Respectfully

Subham (From Bharat)