Latest news with #FriendshipandCooperation
India.com
4 days ago
- Politics
- India.com
A Timeless Ally: How Russia Steadfastly Backed India Through Every Crisis
New Delhi: India and Russia share a friendship that stretches back decades, a bond often highlighted around the world. From Bollywood films to defense collaborations, the connection shows up in many places. Since India's independence, Russia has stood by India during its toughest times. When the United States or Great Britain opposed New Delhi, Moscow was a steadfast ally. In 1966, the Tashkent Agreement brought peace after conflict. Russia supported India through the wars of 1971 and 1999, standing shoulder to shoulder with the nation. On August 9, 1971, India and the Soviet Union signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. This pact was valid for 20 years and laid the foundation for closer ties. In April 2025, a terrorist attack in Anantnag district of Jammu and Kashmir at Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam claimed 26 lives. India launched Operation Sindoor against Pakistan-backed terrorists in response. Pakistan escalated support for militants but faced heavy losses. India's use of powerful BrahMos cruise missiles against Pakistan was made possible through Russian collaboration. Indian defenses destroyed missiles fired by Pakistan before they could enter Indian airspace, thanks to the S-400 missile defense system bought from Russia. Russia has recently offered India joint production of the fifth-generation stealth fighter Su-57E with full technology transfer, a deal that could strengthen the Indian Air Force. During the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, the United States and Britain sent warships to the Bay of Bengal to support Pakistan. When Russia learned of this, it deployed its naval ships to the same area, effectively blocking American and British forces. This strong stance forced those countries to retreat. The war ended with Pakistan's surrender of 93,000 soldiers to India, marking a pivotal moment in South Asian history. In the 1970s, Western countries imposed sanctions on India's nuclear energy programme. Russia stepped in to support India, providing crucial technology and fuel for nuclear reactors. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant stands as an example of this cooperation. Russia also signed multiple agreements with India for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, including building additional reactors and supplying low-enriched uranium fuel. In the 1962 war with China, Moscow supported New Delhi by supplying weapons and military equipment. Though it did not intervene directly, it halted arms sales to China and eased pressure on India. After the conflict, Russia played a key role in mediating the Tashkent Agreement, helping restore diplomatic ties between India and China. Russia's help also extends to space. India's first satellite, Aryabhata, was developed with Soviet assistance and launched in 1975. The satellite's name honours the famous Indian astronomer Aryabhata. Russia's cultural influence touches Indian cinema. The iconic song from Raj Kapoor's film Awaara mentions a 'red cap from Russia'. Known as the budyonovka, this symbol represents the Russian Revolution of 1917. Prime Minister Narendra Modi referenced this historic 'red cap friendship' during his 2024 visit to Russia. The cap symbolises a revolution that changed the course of Russian and world history. India and Russia have shared many challenges and triumphs. Their partnership has endured wars, sanctions and shifting global dynamics. Today, that bond continues to evolve, promising new chapters in this longstanding friendship.
Indian Express
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Did India breach international law during Operation Sindoor? Here's what the UN Charter says
Written by N Manoharan and Anusha G Rao In a press statement, Pakistan accused India's retaliatory actions of being 'a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, international law, and established norms governing interstate relations.' But did India, in fact, violate any of these? According to Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations: 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' Despite being a UN member, Pakistan has consistently violated this very principle. From time to time, it has issued threats and gone on to use force 'against the territorial integrity or political independence' of India, a founding member of the United Nations. The infamous adage, 'We will wage a war for a thousand years,' attributed to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and the phrase 'Bleed India by a thousand cuts,' popularised by Zia ul-Haq, are well known. Since Independence, India has faced both conventional and sub-conventional use of force by Pakistan. The UN Charter permits a response in self-defence under Article 51: 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' This provision, though not present in the initial draft of the Charter, was included in the final version in response to legitimate concerns raised by smaller states. The right to self-defence — whether individual or collective — is recognised as an inherent right. Importantly, it predates the existence of the United Nations and is rooted in customary international law. It draws on the Caroline incident of 1837, a dispute between the United States and the British Government regarding US support to Canadian rebels. The right to self-defence has since been interpreted to include anticipatory self-defence or pre-emption, which requires that the threat be 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation' — a standard known in international law as the Caroline test. India has consistently observed this principle, ensuring its actions in self-defence are limited strictly by necessity. All collective security arrangements — NATO, for instance — are based on the principle of collective self-defence as outlined in Article 51. However, in the present context, India has exercised its inherent right to individual self-defence. In 1971, New Delhi signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the then-Soviet Union to secure a collective self-defence mechanism in anticipation of possible great-power involvement in the impending war with Pakistan. This mechanism proved effective in deterring the United States from intervening. Since the UN Charter refers primarily to state actors, a critical question arises: What if non-state actors are involved in the 'armed attack'? In the Nicaragua case (1986), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that: 'The support given by the United States to the military and paramilitary activities of the Contras in Nicaragua — by financial support, training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistical support — constituted a clear breach of the principle of non-intervention.' This judgment reiterated the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (1970), which stated: 'No State shall organise, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.' This principle was further strengthened by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), which defines aggression to include: 'Sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to acts of aggression.' The link between state and non-state actors is therefore well established in international law. Specifically in the context of Pakistan, one senior Pakistan army officer once remarked during the Khalistan movement in the 1980s that keeping India's Punjab 'destabilised was equivalent to the Pakistan army having an extra division at no cost'. This rationale applies more broadly to the destabilisation of India in general, and Jammu and Kashmir in particular. What, then, about compensation for the damage caused by armed attacks? Interestingly, in the Nicaragua case, the ICJ did order reparations, ruling: 'The United States has an obligation to pay Nicaragua, in its own right and as parens patriae for the citizens of Nicaragua, reparations for damages to persons, property and the Nicaraguan economy caused by the foregoing violations of international law, in a sum to be determined by the Court. Nicaragua reserves the right to introduce to the Court a precise evaluation of the damages caused by the United States.' India not only adhered diligently to international law in the present standoff, but also refrained from pressing for reparations for the immense damage to life and property caused by Pakistan's actions over the years. It is perhaps time India considers approaching the ICJ for reparations. Manoharan is professor and director, Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru. Rao is an advocate based in Bengaluru
