In about twenty-four years, between 1991 when Ukraine became an independent nation and 2014, Ukraine’s NATO membership application was left hanging. In 2014, Russia occupied Crimea under the pretext that it was concerned about Ukraine joining NATO. Crimea, the southern peninsular third of Ukraine is known for its warm water ports and has strategic importance for both Ukraine and Russia.
Russia might have had a ‘genuine’ concern about Ukraine joining NATO. It would have tilted the power balance in Europe as the induction of Ukraine would have definitely strengthened NATO. In spite of that not one Western power came to Ukraine's rescue in the last eleven years.
The First Lesson
In international diplomacy, every nation looks for its self-interest. The concept of ‘altruism’ is absent. It was always self-interest behind the long series of US interventions beginning with Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Kuwait and other nations. The concepts of ‘neo-colonialism’ and ‘banana republics’ are byproducts of self-interest. The principle was the same when the ‘super powers’ refused to intervene in conflicts. In 1950 China was a weak nation; yet when she occupied Tibet neither the USA nor the USSR thought it fit to intervene, as they had no benefit in the bargain. India had—she lost a buffer state—but she meekly surrendered her stake citing some ‘highfalutin’ principles. She would rue her inaction in 1955-57 and in 1962, but by then it was far, far too late.
The Second Lesson
During the seventy years between 1919 when the USSR came into existence and its break up in 1990, Russia had systematically altered the demographic balance in Ukraine by settling ethnic Russians there in large numbers. These include, in addition to southern and eastern parts of Crimea, the Donbas region, particularly the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. In case of an armed conflict, the Russified parts of Ukraine may side with Russia.
China used the same strategy of altering the demographics in Tibet and Xinjiang (it calls them autonomous regions) by settling ethnic Chinese there in huge numbers.
Illegal infiltration from Bangladesh into West Bengal and Assam began soon after the 1971 war. The initial refugees were mostly Bengali Hindus. They were given asylum as a genuine humanitarian measure. The Left-Front which came to power in 1977 saw a captive vote bank in illegal immigrants and encouraged rather than controlled illegal immigration. This coupled with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism saw rapid influx of illegal immigrants. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism saw in the melee an opportunity to espouse its version of Lebenshraum.
The Left-Front government, bolstered by the power of illegal immigrant vote lasted for thirty-three years. In 2011, the Left-Front lost power but the illegal immigrant vote did not! The Left-Front’s successor, the TMC used the same copybook to ride to power. Any change in the government did not matter to the illegal immigrants. To the utter chagrin of the Commies, the illegal immigrants retained their ‘collective bargaining power’ without the necessity or hassle of loyalty to the nation.
The Left-Front lost power but the copybook survived. Intimidated by the rising tide of genuine nationalism, other political parties cottoned on to the political dividends of captive vote banks of illegal immigrants. Thanks to the patronage of these political parties, we now have illegal immigrants in as far-removed regions from the eastern borders as Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir. These political parties might someday realize their folly as the Commies did in 2011, but by then it would be far, far too late.
The numbers of illegal immigrants swelled and swelled to the extent that it had changed the demographic map of the entire east and northeast. If India were to face a war with neighbouring Bangladesh the loyalties of the illegal immigrants would be severely tested. But by then it might be far, far too late. There is already a nexus between Pakistan and Bangladesh and the Pakistani ‘field marshal’ threatened that if India carried out ‘Operation Sindoor’ any further as it professed, she would be surprised by attacks from the east.
How and why exactly Trump thought he could ‘discipline’ India is difficult to understand. It could be his overweening yearning for a Nobel Peace Prize or monumental ego blinded him! Irrespective of whichever party was in power, India pursued its own course. The Indira Gandhi government in 1974 and the Atal Behari Vajpayee government in 1998 braved sanctions to conduct nuclear tests. Trump might not have understood the self-confidence, nationalist spirit and vigour of the new Indian administration which shed its colonial inhibitions. However, his tariff threats resulted in a wholly unintended consequence, causing a thaw in India China relations.
At this point in time, it is difficult to gauge whether the course India is pursuing is right or wrong. China once betrayed India and is in illegal occupation of large swathes of Indian territory. It is not a trustworthy neighbour. But, despite protestations to the contrary, both India and China probably realize that Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh are fait accompli. In Chess terms, there is a stalemate. Neither government can however openly admit it. Doing so would result in loss of face and power.
Under the circumstances, the Indian government’s move of cosying up to China is another move on the international chess board. It might be a hard gamble. None can predict its outcomes. Only future will tell!
