Keep the troops there

Should India withdraw its troops from UN peacekeeping forces? In a thought-provoking op-ed in these pages, Nitin Pai and Sushant Singh, argue, for a number of reasons, that India should scale down its participation in UN peacekeeping operations. The authors deserve to be complimented for starting a debate on an issue that’s considered the founding principle for deployment of the military on foreign soil. Indeed, the internalisation of operating under the ‘blue-helmet’ concept is so strong within the military, that few imagine operating outside our borders without UN authorisation. For instance, in the debate on whether to deploy Indian troops in Iraq, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, one of the key demands was to do so under a UN mandate. However, before coming to hasty conclusions about the utility of participating in UN ops, we need to consider what’s at stake here

First, the authors find it hard to justify the death of Indian peacekeepers in the ‘service of an ideal’. On the contrary, an ideal justifies everything — from fighting for one’s country, exposing corruption in the badlands of Bihar or dying to bring peace in the Congo. It was to ‘serve an ideal’ that our forefathers fought for our freedom against colonial oppression. India’s participation in peacekeeping operations began under an ideal that was propagated by Nehru and earned it global goodwill with the conduct of the Indian army in Korea, Gaza and in numerous missions in Africa. If there are no ideals to serve, then no cause is worth fighting and dying for.

Second, the authors contend that despite being one of the largest troop contributors to the UN, we have not been suitably rewarded with a UN Security Council seat. But the reasons for not getting a seat in the Security Council lie elsewhere— namely in great power politics and the difficulty is redesigning the Council to reflect contemporary global powers. Participation in peacekeeping operations does not hurt the case for India. Exactly the opposite. The goodwill earned through the high rates of participation and sacrifices made by Indian soldiers will only help in securing India’s place on the high table. When — and not if — the Security Council does reform, India has a stronger case by virtue of participating in these missions.

Third, the authors advise that instead of gaining the sort of exposure that comes from UN missions, the Indian military would be better served by working on bilateral or multilateral exercises with the UK, Japan, ASEAN and others. However it need not be an ‘either/or’ choice — India has the capability and the capacity to do both, as it is currently doing, and participating in one does not adversely impact participating in the other. On the contrary, it enhances its ability to operate in a wider spectrum of operations — a capability that most other militaries envy.

... contd.

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.