In a world full of conflicts what does it say about a nation that generates money through the sale of bullets and is at the same time says its neutral? With the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India has come under the limelight, a country that not only has declined to put sanctions against Russia that the western world had imposed Russia, but is also an active participant in the supply of weaponry that feeds the ongoing violent conflict in Europe. Although Moscow has expressed concerns, Indian defense industries have not ceased selling artillery shells to Europeans who in turn send them to Ukraine. This disturbing trend prompts questions about India and its worth as a global citizen; and its dependability as a partner in the defense industry. It is shocking how it is deeply involved in arms procurement.
India’s involvement in the Ukraine war is shrouded in plausible deniability. Indian arms manufacturers, under the pretense of commerce, have sold artillery shells to European buyers, knowing full well that these munitions will end up in Ukrainian hands. The same bullets that start from Russia are further sold by India. This fact and Modi’s insistence at not supporting sanctions against Russia establishes one stark hypocrisy; although India sources over 60% of its arms from Russia, it is capitalizing on the war. This is actually a betrayal of trust and especially because historically India and Russia were strategic partners. India’s desire to advance its arms export business during a European conflict is equally worrisome. What is now being seen is not a conflict as a humanitarian issue, but as a business opportunity, for India – the country that can expand its arms sales; Indian exported arms were valued more than $3 billion between 2018-2023. This is the irony in the sense that India is benefitting from artillery shells that in same time is being utilized against Russian forces. Such actions not only not only cast aspersions on India’s standing in the comity of nations but also cause severe doubts on the reliability of India as defense partner of Russia.
Adding to this duplicity is that India is involved in arms sales that provoke tensions in several theaters: India arms sales support Israel that has its military activity. Through these arms trade, India is considered as a brazen ‘businessmen’ who have no regard for values in international politics. Such blatant disrespect for peace and security undermines India’s global reputation as it cultivates an image of a country benefitting from war. Russia has expressed concern over the use by Ukraine of Indian ammunition twice. This creates more questions not merely to the Indian integrity but also to the future repercussions that its bilateral relationship has with Russia.
The lack of comment from Indian officials about the shipment of weapons to Ukraine also speaks volumes about their plans to supply weapons to Ukraine. Even though India currently contributes a tiny fraction of the ammunition currently being utilized by Ukraine, but the simple fact that it allows these weapons to pass through its borders means it does not care about the ramifications of war. There is continued exploitation of arms export regulation laws whereby European buyers easily transfer these weapons to Ukraine only adds to this opportunistic behavior by India. More recently, customs information has shown that Indian shells were supplied to an Italian contractor who loaded them with explosives for Ukraine’s use. This complex puzzle of arms transfers produces ethical questions not only for India but for its European partners too. However, India looks unperturbed, continuing with its arms export plans regardless of the human cost it implies.
The analysis of India’s actions during the Ukraine war shows that India acts as duplicitous actor and is willing to sell its values for money. India is losing a partner in Russia as well as international trust by prioritizing its arms export ambitions over its historic associations and responsibility. Usually, when a nation boasts to be a peacemaker, one has to ask whether it is possible for a country to be a peacemaker while it feeds on war economy. It is a question to which an adequate response can be given only by getting down to a serious reflection that demands a serious reckoning.
