Ukraine Is Wrong: Indian Experts Are Multipolar Visionaries, Not “Russian Propagandists”
Taking aim at Indian intellectuals by defaming them for articulating their country’s policy of principled neutrality is therefore an extremely hostile move by Kiev that might even have been coordinated with its American overlord. It’s completely counterproductive though since India will never be pressured to unilaterally concede on issues of objective national interests like its special and privileged strategic partnership with Russia, nor will its most prominent experts ever capitulate in the face of this thuggish intimidation.
Ukraine’s “Centre for Countering Disinformation”, a subsidiary of its National Security & Defense Council, published a list of so-called “Russian propagandists” the other day that included the names of three prominent Indian experts. These are former Chairman of the Indian National Security Advisory Board and former Ambassador to Russia P.S. Raghavan, former advisor to Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Manmohan Singh Sam Pitroda, and veteran journalist Saeed Naqvi. According to this official branch of the Ukrainian government, all three are “Russian propagandists” simply because they expressed pragmatic stances towards the Ukrainian Conflict instead of jumping on the anti-Russian bandwagon.
As the author wrote in early May, “What’s Dishonestly Smeared As ‘Russian Propaganda’ Is Just The Multipolar Worldview”, which can be simplified as the belief that the global systemic transition to multipolarity is leading to a decline in the US’ unipolar hegemony and the consequent chance to create a more equal, fair, and just future. This emerging Multipolar World Order is characterized by the rise of sovereign states that prioritize the pursuit of their objective interests. In the Indian context, this approach has been compellingly articulated by External Affairs Minister Jaishankar over the summer, especially with respect to the reasons why his country is refusing to condemn and sanction Russia.
In a nutshell, India decisively intervened to preemptively avert its strategic partner’s potentially disproportionate dependence on China by becoming its irreplaceable valve from Western pressure so that Moscow wouldn’t have to consider becoming Beijing’s “junior partner” in exchange for much-needed economic support. India is attempting to jointly assemble a third pole of influence alongside Russia and Iran for the purpose of midwifing tripolarity from the present bi-multipolar intermediary phase of the global systemic transition and subsequently facilitating the emergence of complex multipolarity (“multiplexity”) with time.
This grand strategy isn’t pro-Russian or -Western, but simply the most pragmatic approach that India could take for making the best of the chaotic international conditions in which it’s conducting its foreign policy. To that end, it’s practicing a strict policy of principled neutrality towards the Ukrainian Conflict whereby it doesn’t support or oppose any of the relevant parties, instead consistently preaching the need for peaceful political solutions to all disputes. This explains its skeptical stance towards the US-led Western Mainstream Media (MSM) narrative about the conflict since accepting such without question would by default place it on the US’ side against Russia.
On the other hand, while expressing concern about the role of NATO encroachment towards Russia’s borders and the US’ gradual crossing of that Eurasian Great Power’s national security red lines, India also hasn’t officially endorsed Moscow’s interpretation of the conflict either since that would put it on the Kremlin’s side against that civilization-state’s close Western partners. The resultant policy has thus seen India carefully balancing between the US-led Golden Billion and the BRICS-led Global South of which it’s an integral leader, which has led to it participating in both the G7 and BRICS Summits within a week of one another. This is the definition of neutrality, not of any pro-Russian or -Western policy.
Nevertheless, Kiev demands full compliance with its American overlord’s demands against Russia, ergo why its security structures officially consider those three earlier mentioned Indian experts to be so-called “Russian propagandists” simply because they haven’t towed the Western line against Moscow. Not only is this the wrong interpretation of their intentions, but it’s also disrespectful of Indian grand strategy and a form of thuggish intimidation intended to pressure those prominent individuals into self-censoring or changing their views. This therefore makes it a hostile act by the Ukrainian state against what’s supposed to still be its Indian partner.
Considering the fact that Russia has convincingly argued that Kiev’s actually under complete American control nowadays, it can’t be discounted that Washington is employing that former Soviet Republic as a proxy for the latest phase of its ongoing information warfare campaign against India. The purpose is to launder these defamatory and disrespectful accusations against those influential figures through Ukraine’s security structures for the purpose of influencing the Western audience into wrongly thinking that India supports Russia against the West. The whole point of this perception management operation is to precondition them into expecting more comprehensive pressure on India in the coming future.
Be that as it may, India has proven that it’ll never unilaterally concede on any issues of objective national interests, especially not those that relate to Russia for the earlier mentioned reason connected to Delhi’s desire to prevent Moscow from becoming Beijing’s “junior partner” at all costs. That civilization-state’s intellectuals are inspired by a patriotic commitment to their country to articulate its careful balancing act to the public, including foreigners, and won’t be perturbed by Kiev’s thuggish intimidation tactic of falsely claiming that this makes them so-called “Russian propagandists”. To the contrary, this unprovoked pressure will only embolden them to produce more prominent analyses.
Furthermore, it deserves to be mentioned that the Indian state most likely suspects that Kiev might indeed be functioning as the US’ proxy in this particular context, which could serve to decrease trust between these two even more than it’s already been since America began its information warfare campaign against that civilization-state nearly half a year ago. Without respecting the right of India to pursue its own path in International Relations, which is indisputably a neutral one that eschews bloc politics and prioritizes on the pursuit of national interests, the US can never be that country’s true partner but only one of convenience whose bilateral relations will never reach their full potential.
Taking aim at Indian intellectuals by defaming them for articulating their country’s policy of principled neutrality is therefore an extremely hostile move by Kiev that might even have been coordinated with its American overlord. It’s completely counterproductive though since India will never be pressured to unilaterally concede on issues of objective national interests like its special and privileged strategic partnership with Russia, nor will its most prominent experts ever capitulate in the face of this thuggish intimidation. This artificially manufactured drama only proves that India’s on the right path that the US felt that it had to resort to defamatory smears against some of its brightest geopolitical minds by proxy.