Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday said that India had not been “neutral or an indifferent bystander and it is always on the side of peace." This is a big signal towards India performing as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine for peacemaking.
During an interaction with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, Modi reiterated India's position that the conflict can be resolved only through dialogue and diplomacy. He added that New Delhi is ready to make proactive contributions towards efforts for peace, Reuters quoted the prime minister as saying. Source
While PM Modi has never condemned Russia's attack on Ukraine and Israel's attacks inside Gaza, does the phrase that 'India is always on the side of peace' make any sense?
Or, is it necessary to criticise or condemn one nation because some other nation/nations wanted so?
The friendship between Modi and Putin is not hidden to anyone. But, Modi has never signalled the world that India favours Moscow over Washington. In fact in this multipolar world, the stance India has adopted is very peculiar. India doesn't want to take and doesn't need to join any pole. India's economy and geography both allow India to remain above the status quo of joining any international forces.
Often the analysts for world politics criticise India for the lack of clear-cut fundamentals for maintaining International relations. The answer to their blames lie in India's deep rooted fundamentals of Neutralism. But this Neutralism shouldn't be misjudged for indifference towards world politics or wars or violence.
India does not favour of any action of violence and war anywhere and by anyone. But, this doesn't mean that India needs to break its ties with any country. And Zelensky might not like the hugs, but he is also welcome.
It's now clear that India is ready to be the peacemaker between Ukraine and Russia, if both countries agree. The reaction from warmongers would be quite interesting.