Moral Abdication in India

India has made news recently in refusing to sign the statement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in condemning the outrageous airstrikes by Israel into the territory of Iran, and this is more than an abstention on the international scene of diplomacy, it is symbolic moral suicide and the strategic treason needed to take a stand in favor of cynicism and reduce others. India remains silent at a time of international tensions as the international system is being weighed down by unprovoked aggression and outright destructions of sovereignty and so the silence of India cannot be construed as being neutral; instead it is a manifestation of complicity on the part of the Indians in quiet collusion with an aggressor state where its multiple attacks on regional peace international norms and fundamental human rights have become too evident to the extent of ignoring it. Condemnation of military actions of Israel by all members of the SCO was not a move that was made on the fly, it was a deliberate exercise of necessity to de-escalate conflict respects to international law and maintenance of peace in a region that had long witnessed the impact of external interference and violence.
At this critical juncture, when Iranian civilians, civilian infrastructure, and national sovereignty are directly being attacked what international community needs to see is not dithering around or political contortion but straight forward moral clarity. The attacking of nuclear energy installations by Israel, non-military objects, the annihilation of which can lead to the emergence of the situation of ecological and humanitarian disasters, is a red line according to the established norms of international law, namely, the Geneva Convention and the resolutions of the United Nations on the safety of civilian infrastructure in conflict areas. The fact that India has refused to speak against this tell volumes of how India views its own strategy. It is clear that the Indian reasoning that it was not a part of the deliberations that resulted in the joint declaration by SCO is bogus.
This did not amount to a lapse by procedural oversight by India but rather by intentional political self-preservation by India not to be put in that diplomatic discomfort of condemning its ever-closer partner, Israel. Excluding itself in this stance of calculated non engagement. India has not taken any neutral position but instead has rather approved the conditions of the status quo of impunity with impunity, allowing one of the aggressor states to go with impunity without having the repercussions of its actions that abdicate the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention which is also sacrosanct to all the members of the SCO.
Some countries such as Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia with disparate interests and strategic cultures even found a way to deny Israel the use of aggression as a stabilizing factor as unlawful and very harmful in its effects on peace in the region. When India refuses to participate in this consensus, it is not a simple abstention but a betrayal of all principles of respect of territorial sovereignty, non-aggression and peaceful settlement of disputes touted by SCO. Admittedly, the SCO declaration was not a political or ideological publication but a simple appeal to defusing tensions, temperance and respecting of international laws which India should have supported.
The episode also reveals the further paradoxes of the Indian foreign policy with the ruling Modi cabinet. India falters on the morality issue when its blossoming relationship with Israel is at stake. The relationship is based on arms trade, in cyberspace cooperation, in the sharing of intelligence and by virtue of having common hating enemies like Iran and Pakistan as common Muslim powers. The unwillingness of the Modi government to speak up against the unlawful activities of Israel is not influenced by idealism but by the requirements of this new complex of interest the Hindutva-Zionist convergence that is emerging as one major determinant of Indian geopolitical identity.
This moral abdication does not come at a free charge. To Iran, that message is clear as day even a supposed ally and fellow Asian state has preferred to remain silent when its Iranian acknowledged counterparts fell prey to patent aggression against their land and their people. To Pakistan, China, and other Muslim majority states or anti-hegemonic countries in the SCO, India has behaved how these states have always considered it to be a complex, unreliable and duplicitous regional player. This disengagement by India is even threatening cohesion within SCO and even to Russia that considers such unity and solidarity as an important part of SCO, this is likely to destroy the credibility of the right to exist as a group of declarations that are nothing but empty exercises without solidarity.
If India truly believes in the power of peaceful solution and diplomatic route, why not speak out violations that threaten the very values? The reality is that when India declines to condemn Israel it is not a matter of process or diplomatic relocation but expediency and part politics. Israel is a major source of arms, surveillance and military skills to India; the nations are together on intelligence, cyber networks and a commonality of interest in beating Islamic resistance movements, as well as states. Anything that criticizes Israel would be a threat to such a relationship, and would also be against the silent agreement between New Delhi and Tel Aviv because they both have geopolitical agendas in common. So, to India non-participation is much better than intellectual comfort. This dodge of truth by India has indicated that it will be the manipulative logic of expediency and alliances rather than moral leadership that will be shaping its emergence as a world power.
In addition, the position of India poses a serious threat to the coherence of SCO itself. When one of its largest and most powerful members denies itself the possibility to engage itself in even the most fundamental manifestations of collective responsibility, namely condemnation of unprovoked military aggression, the forum falls under the threat of becoming an irrelevant entity. The viability of the SCO in dictating type of security in the region, capacity to speak with one voice concerning the affairs of war and peace and fulfilling the role of a counter balance to the predominantly western dominated entities such as NATO, relies on the adherence of all the member states on shared values.
Conclusively, fact that India did not want to get directly involved in the condemnation of Israel against Iran by the SCO has more than a diplomatic implication; rather it is a sign more of a moral and strategic miscarriage. By not saying anything about justice and expediency combined with alliance politics, along with the international law, India has revealed the hollowness of its international policy proclaiming the leader in the region and responsible on the international scale. This failure of acting morally does not only betray the people of Iran who pay a price of illegal violence, but also compromises the SCO, multilateralism, and destroys the legitimacy of India itself in pretending a statecraft rooted in principles. Ultimately India has shown again, that it is another power ready to sacrifice justice to convenience, peace to profit and solidarity to self-interest and, as history will never forget nor forgive.