The perils of toeing West’s narrative on Russia

In mid-May, Russian President Vladimir Putin paid a two-day visit to China, his first visit abroad since winning elections in March. The visit was closely watched by the West for two obvious reasons. First, with a cautionary stance that China doesn’t make any more commitments to support the Russian war machinery, and second, with the hope that Xi Jinping will be able to convince Putin to end his war in Ukraine.

There was a reasonable amount of coverage of this visit by the Indian media as well, but what utterly shocked me was the propensity of the Indian media to toe the western line. A copy of a Reuters article syndicated to Indian publications was circulating all over, screaming, “Putin’s visit has defied the West.” It took an almost comical proportion when even the state media, such as Doordarshan’s official website, was found carrying the same piece with the same headline.

As someone who has worked in the media previously, I know these agency copies can be actually edited and not copy-pasted directly, but that’s another thing. What was really problematic were the opinion and analysis pieces on Putin’s visit that were penned by even the Indian authors. The whole effort was spent assessing the visit from a Western prism of how two ‘rogue’ states are inching closer to challenging the West-led current world order.

To be fair, there were a few commentaries that did analyse how the Russia-China bonhomie would play out for Indian interests, but even there, the Western caricature of Russia as an aggressor in Ukraine or an economically spent force was borrowed heavily from the West’s propaganda against Putin.

A similar absurdity was on display in March this year, after Putin had won his presidential election. Editorials and pieces in national newspapers were giving tough competition to the Western press in demonising Putin. A headline accused Putin of “orchestrating” his election, while another piece accused him of suppressing opposition and voices critical of his war in Ukraine. Again, the tragic dependence of Indian media on Western agencies such as the Associated Press, AFP or Reuters aside, even the independent pieces by Indian analysts targeted Putin for stage-managing the election.

An Indian news agency literally syndicated a piece accusing Putin of stifling counter-voices and gagging the media. A national daily assessed whether Russians were any better off after Putin’s victory. As per the editorial, he was an expansionist whose idea of a Russian zone of influence resembles the “Czarist notion of empire”. The complete surrender to Western narrative was unmissable in this piece, as it pitied Russia for alienating its “well-wishers” in Europe!

Now, a genuine criticism of Putin for not following democratic ways is one thing, but here, this was definitely not the case. There are hundreds of other countries in the world, including the likes of Pakistan and China, but the same proselytising spirit of giving them lectures on democracy has been curiously missing. Then why, in the case of Putin, the most used frame of reference is his record on press freedom and democracy when, unlike the West, democracy promotion is not even a foreign policy goal for India?

Actually, the tendency of Indian commentariats to toe the Western narrative on Russia is hardly unusual. A similar naivety, or, one may say, strategic blunder, was on display when Russia attacked Ukraine. At that time, Putin was also demonised as a warmonger, with India’s own voices pressing on the need to isolate Russia. Although a much better sense prevailed among the Indian policymakers who continued to buy Russian oil despite the attempts to shame India, later it turned out that the same West had been silently buying Russian oil from India.

At that time, India could confidently pursue an independent foreign policy focused on its own self-interest, but now that window is fast disappearing. The visuals of warmth between Putin and Jinping have given a massive opportunity to a particular section of India, which can’t help but push the West’s narrative here. The reason may be peer pressure from their western counterparts or a genuine fear of Russia-China closeness undercutting Indian interests, but whatever the case, toeing the Western line on Russia will do more damage to India than otherwise.

Firstly, the West’s problems with Russia aren’t India’s problems. Minus the global narrative machine churning European position on a daily basis, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is as local as India’s problems with Pakistan. It is a continental headache for Europe, in which even its partner across the Atlantic, the United States, has a section asking for reconsideration of its over-participation.

Also, Russia being “expansionist” is such a silly argument by Indians because, unlike the European countries, which may actually have a threat from their territorial expansionism, India isn’t even anywhere in the vicinity. Russia is an immediate neighbour of China, with which India shares an unsettled land border. Hence, by Kautilyan logic, Russia is a “Mitra” or friend. At some point, if Russia’s expansionism towards the Siberian side starts irking the Chinese, it will be a great win for Indian interests vis-à-vis China.

Thus, the attempts to criticise Russia by the Indian strategic community sound more amusing than befitting. The West’s long-term beef with Russia is its independent streak and self-confidence in an otherwise ‘Yes Sir’ alliance system that dominates the West. India is neither a participant in that system nor is it even a fence-watcher.

A growing Indian economy and a rising desire to shape world affairs will meet an equally disinterested and even hard-blocking West. What can be funnier than an Indian analyst bashing Putin’s dictatorial ways on the West’s cue when the same West is calling Indian democracy backsliding? The line may eventually get too blurry, and even the most objective voices in India may tomorrow join the West’s chorus in shaming their own country.

Russia, under Putin, has proved to be one of the key partners for India. Of all the great powers, if there is one country that would have concerns for India’s interests in its strategic backyard in the subcontinent, it is most likely to be Russia.

Putin’s personal depth of understanding with respect to this is advantageous for India. Our defence partnership aside, Russia is also very emphatic about India’s rise, with regular reaffirmations from Moscow recognising India’s potential as a great power. It also walks the talk by backing India’s forays in Central Asia, Russia’s strategic backyard for resources, and its connectivity initiatives, including the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Chennai-Vladivostok maritime link. Why would we jeopardise a stable relationship by borrowing Western-tinted glasses?

As for the fears of a dragon-bear bonhomie, India should naturally worry and must also watch the dynamics closely, but by following the West’s narrative in criticising Russia or its leaders, India may commit a grave mistake by alienating Russia, which may further push Moscow into Beijing’s arms. Such tactics would do more harm than bring any advantage to India. For too long, even the Soviet Union had seen independent India as an extension of the British Raj. Why are we trying to be seen as puppets of the West today? Anyway, pragmatically, it doesn’t make sense to assume that Moscow’s closeness to Beijing means an end to the Moscow-Delhi partnership.

This definitely has assumed a new form of cooperation, but it has more to do with convenience, which may change later. Don’t forget that Russia and China still have boundary issues. In 2023, their ‘no limits’ partnership was tested when China appropriated the entire Bolshoi Ussuriyski Island in the standard map published by the country. In 1969, the conflict on an island in the Ussuri River following the Sino-Soviet split paved the way for India-Soviet Union friendship. Hence, to think the China-Russia friendship is cast in stone would be a great strategic error.

Russia values India’s friendship and is sympathetic to Indian interests. The urge to signal loyalty to the West by using any opportunity to distance itself from Russia may sound like a beneficial strategy to a section today. But remember, global chess is all about pulling off as many moves as possible, and by giving up on Russia, we are turning away from our own interests. There is a precedent for the West and China mending their bridges during the Cold War. Such a development today can again make New Delhi anxious.

India’s current foreign policy is on the right track, as summed up by PM Modi in an election rally last week—each diplomat is expected to bring technology, tourism, and trade to India, and that’s their precise brief. This is not the right moment to judge which partner to keep and which to junk. The end goal, after all, is to be an independent pole in world politics. India will have many suitors as long as we leverage multi-aligned foreign policy to build our strength, and Russia is a key cornerstone of that.

The author is a New Delhi-based commentator on geopolitics and foreign policy. She holds a PhD from the Department of International Relations, South Asian University. You may follow her on X: @TrulyMonica. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.