THE spiraling violence in Syria unfortunately continues to rock the Arab world as the protagonists refuse to entertain any thought of a cease-fire this holy month of Ramadan. There seems to be a bitter divide on the Syrian crisis everywhere — within the international community, opposition forces and even President Bashar Assad’s own regime with a sizable minority rooting for credible and inclusive political reforms in subdued voice. An unending debate rages on the contentious question of enforced humanitarian intervention in sovereign territories without the consent of respective governments.
Though bringing about a change that offers secured existence for one and all may sound like a perfect moral hypothesis in any given situation, replicating the grand idea on ground is replete with the inevitable possibility of drawing serious differences among its proponents over the methods and degree of such response. Like Libya, the situation in Syria has escalated into a volatile one as the international community is struggling to piece together a comprehensive policy initiative for restraining the warring parties. Almost all nations with worthwhile influence in international politics are in a quandary about how to balance their respective strategic interest with that of the avowed objective of restoring sanity in strife torn Syria. India being an emerging global player is still groping for the best possible foreign policy initiative that adequately addresses the question of evolving a perfect level of engagement in nation states gripped with armed rebellion resulting out of administrative tyranny. After all one has to appreciate New Delhi’s general inhibition in orchestrating peace talks ever since the disastrously failed fling in Sri Lanka. Hence, India has deliberately refused to exert any visible influence on events unfolding in the Middle East through creative maneuvering putting into good service her traditional relationship with the oil rich nations of the Arab world.
The inconsistency in India’s policy on Syria was manifested in the frequent flip-flop at the United Nations. Deciding to abstain from voting on a Saudi Arabia sponsored General Assembly resolution identical to the one that India voted for in contour and texture last February even though it was vetoed in the Security Council actually stems from a trial and error approach adopted by the foreign policy mandarins on major global issues. The cautious official response actually evolves from the impression of an autocratic Assad being blessed with the combined support of the minority Alawite sect he himself represents and the Christian community accounting for 10 percent of Syria’s total population who are supposedly living in constant fear of recrimination and retribution that was witnessed in post Saddam Hussein Iraq. Being one of the founding fathers of non alignment and seat of the largest practicing democracy on globe, many in the establishment believe that it is incumbent on the government to ensure that the world particularly Middle East does not end up creating a situation where violence persists after the desired regime change. In addition the targeted killing of Syrian Defense and Interior Minister has ruffled New Delhi’s feather as it can never club itself with any segment that indulges in terror activities especially because such a move can boomerang on the country’s effort to keep Kashmir within her precinct. Then the muddled scenario of the fractured opposition groups competing with each other to form a transitional government separately added to the confusion.
A violent Syria, however, presents India with the golden opportunity to prove herself as a capable player eager to share the burden of accountability in international politics. Skirting responsibility by harping on the issue of non intervention in internal affairs of independent countries however deprive New Delhi of the opportunity to broker a peace deal given the good rapport that exists between India’s ruling Nehru-Gandhi clan and Assad’s family historically.
To argue that leadership change is in the exclusive domain of the perplexed and hapless people of a country like Syria marked by the absence of democratic institutions including independent judiciary or a free media amounts to condoning all the brutality inflicted by the marauding troops of the regime and a way of prolonging the instability facing the strategically key Arab State neighboring Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey.
The Indian Foreign Ministry bosses should instead try and discover an alternative approach that equipoise the concerns of enforcing a regime change and the ethical obligation of protecting the rights of equality and justice in the interest of not only the oppressed Syrians but also those six million expatriate Indians working in the region away from home for years together. It is about time that Manmohan Singh’s government initiated a serious effort to convince Assad that transition into a genuine representative democracy will help preserve the multiethnic and secular character of Syria so essential for a stable Middle East.
— The author is Kolkata-based independent journalist and a columnist.
