Pakistan (10,629), Bangladesh (9,047) and India (8,964) are the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping contingents. In contrast, the United States contributes 297 personnel, of which only 13 are combat troops. Before China began to attract criticism for backing repressive regimes in Africa, it had only a few hundred troops serving under the UN flag. It now has 1,978, several hundred of who are in Sudan, where Beijing has strategic interests. On the other hand, in January 2007, TIME magazine’s Michael Elliott wrote that “there are reportedly 4,000 Chinese (non-UN) troops there protecting Beijing’s oil interests.”

More Indian troops have died in the line of their UN duties than from any other country. According to the Indian Embassy in the US, “India has risked the lives of its soldiers in peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations, not for any strategic gain, but in the service of an ideal. India’s ideal was, and remains, strengthening the world body, and international peace and security.”

That the Indian government should take pride in risking the lives of Indian soldiers in the “service of an ideal” is appalling. It now serves little more than bureaucratic interests.

So what has India gained — apart from bragging rights — for being one of the largest troop contributors to the UN? Well, risking lives to service ideals certainly didn’t count for much when it came to the bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Nor does it count for much in India’s economic diplomacy — veto power at the Security Council is far more useful than 9000 troops in the world’s forgotten war zones. Arguably, income from UN peacekeeping duties was a source of hard currency when India was starved of foreign exchange; this is no longer a factor.

... contd.