Flip-flop diplomacy is a failing script

The Non-alignment creed

These statements do not mean the United States Is going to pivot away from building relations with India. United States’ hostilities with China are at fever pitch because of the former’s support for Taiwan, and the US is keen to bolster India as a regional counterweight to China.

On the diplomatic front, though, there is considerable disquiet at India’s equidistant, ‘flexible’ foreign policy. The equidistant policy is not consistent, and must be distinguished from the earlier ‘Non-aligned Movement’ (NAM) that emerged as a Third World initiative decades ago, led by Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt’s Abdel Nasser, and Yugoslavia’s Josep Bronz Tito.

Non-alignment was the answer to the Cold War, where newly independent nations like India and South Africa were asked to take sides in a highly polarised world. Non-alignment was seen as active neutrality and opposition to new forms of colonialism and economic exploitation.

On the other hand, India’s current foreign policy of equidistance is opportunistic. It is built on abstaining from taking sides. Throughout the over-two-year-old Ukraine War, India has abstained on 6 or more occasions when the UN has voted to stop the war. This is not non-alignment; it is refusal to take a stand.

The flip-flop after the Gaza war broke out on October 7 last year, is now a legend too. Initially, India condemned Hamas’ ‘terrorism’; but when faced with a push-back by the Arab states, this was recalibrated to supporting a ‘two-state’ solution.

Thereafter, there’s been a U-turn again, with India quietly selling ammunition to Israel. The government has also opened its doors to Israel, recruiting labour for construction and other heavy work formerly done by Palestinians.

Keeping a distance from warring parties is one thing, but the constant flip-flops and refusal to take a stand will not win us credibility in the long run.