By Kavita Mistry 
Ukraine was once a repository of Soviet nuclear weapons. After the breakup of the erstwhile USSR, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons under Western (meaning mostly US) guarantees and signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1994. The other guarantors were Russia (which is like the ‘wolf bivouacked at the door’ in the adage) and the UK, which was reduced by then—to use Kruschev’s famous phrase—a ‘paper tiger’. France and China, the other two powers in the United Nations Security Council, offered insincere, anodyne guarantees. In hindsight, it might appear, had Ukraine retained its nuclear weapons, Russia might not have dared to occupy Crimea in 2014 or sought to occupy more regions now. There would have been no Ukraine-Russia conflict!
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 ‘superpowers’ refused to intervene in conflicts. In 1950, China was a weak nation; yet when it 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 the 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 a 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. They 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 and Jammu & Kashmir.
The number 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 Pakistan’s general 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! 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. However, Trump’s tariff threats resulted in 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 realise 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 to cosying up to China is another move on the international chessboard. It might be a hard gamble. None can predict its outcomes. Only the future will tell!
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE