On the sidelines of 18th G20 Summit hosted under Indian presidency in New Delhi, a new economic corridor was launched. Dubbed the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), it is an ambitious trade and investment project.
Starting from India, it connects with the Persian Gulf of the Middle East via Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and, after passing from Israel, reaches Europe through ports in Greece.
With two separate corridors, IMEC envisages building extensive land and marine transportation linkages across the Middle East and Europe. Though at present it is just in the form a memorandum of understanding (MoU) and many of its details are still awaited, its estimated cost is US$20 billion.
However, now that a human tragedy is unfolding in Gaza, the future of IMEC seems uncertain.
India’s tilt to Israel
This time, in sharp contrast with the past, India sided with Israel and did away with its former position on Palestine. Within hours after the Palestine-Israel conflict escalated, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose to support Israel, tweeting, “India stands with Israel.”
Later on, he also talked to his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, and condemned terrorism in all its forms. This signaled a clear shift from India’s previous position on the Palestine-Israel conflict, as the prime minister chose to support Israel unequivocally instead of aligning his statement with the two-state solution.
He also did not condemn the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians by Israel. Similarly, he issued no words of censure for Israel on the massive civilian casualities in a Palestinian hospital.
On the other hand, a spokesman for the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Arindam Bagchi, reiterated India’s former position, maintaining, “India believes in its long-standing support for the establishment of a sovereign, independent, and viable state of Palestine.”
The statements and immediate response of India, by its prime minister and the External Affairs Ministry, mirror the duality through which India is engaging with the Middle East. Pragmatically, this shift in foreign policy can be explained well in the context of India’s increasing economic and strategic dependency on Israel. That country is a crucial trading partner of India, consuming US$3.94 billion worth of Israeli exports annually.
Volatility in Middle East
Without peace, no economic development can take place. The same is the case with the IMEC and its effective execution in a troubled region like the Middle East. Therefore, the ongoing human tragedy in Gaza not only clouds the prospects of the IMEC but also affects Indo-Israeli bilateral trade.
Voice of America’s New Delhi reporter, Anjana Pasricha, called the Israel-Hamas conflict a “reality check” and a “wake-up call” for IMEC.
The director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, Michael Kugleman, highlighted the non-viability of IMEC in the volatile Middle East. He remarked that IMEC “is not just a matter of financing challenges, but also of stability and diplomatic cooperation.”
Here again, it is evident that, as long as India sides with one state only, IMEC cannot be materialized in the Middle East.
Much of this economic initiative hinged on the Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization that was under way for quite some time. After the Israel-Hamas conflict, the US-led Abraham Accord 2.0 is also in tatters.
Referring to this, at the Observer Research Foundation, Manoj Joshi commented that IMEC was launched under the presumption that there is peace in the Middle East.
Other than this, by bypassing Turkey, IMEC sparks deep-seated rivalries between Ankara and Athens. India is certainly walking the tightrope as it finds itself stumbling upon the ages-old disputes in the region.
Linked with this is a pertinent question: Can India navigate the complexities standing in the way of IMEC and deliver in terms of its economic initiatives in the Middle East?
Hindutva, a problem or solution?
The answer to this question lies in a state’s political philosophy. India, since the assumption of power by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), started to tint every venture, be it national or international, with its religio-political philosophy, Hindutva.
The Modi-led Indian government styles itself as a “spiritual democracy.” It purports itself as a champion of the Global South. While connecting itself to the ancient spiritual roots, it aims at fostering changes in the world order based on humanism and democracy.
Ideally, such lofty claims warrant unequivocal support for the cause of humanity in the recent Gaza tragedy. Strangely, though, India, for the first time in its history, abstained on a UN resolution on calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Indian opposition parties vehemently criticized this move and urged the Modi government to support the call for an urgent ceasefire in Gaza. They registered their dissent by expressing how “shocked” and “ashamed” they are after this unexpected shift in the Indian foreign policy.
The Communist Party of India went beyond the verbal condemnation and released a joint statement to support the UN call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. These moves by the Indian opposition parties explain how differently the democratic voices feel on India’s shift on Israel-Hamas conflict.
Pragmatically too, if India does not follow a balanced foreign policy, it is not going to posit itself as a credible responsible stakeholder in the international system. It assumes special significance if it intends to build its reputation as a state with high humanitarian and democratic values.
However, New Delhi’s Hindutva-driven forays in the international arena are raising a big question mark on the tenets of its foreign policy – both in ideal and pragmatic realms. India does not seem to be walking its talk.
At the same summit where IMEC was launched, the Indian government chose “One Earth, One Family, One Future” as the theme of its G20 presidency. Instead of materializing this global and inclusive vision in reality, the BJP – under Modi’s leadership – used the presidency for raising the political stakes in its favor.
At the same G20 Summit, the Ukraine issue was shelved, and India-Canada differences over the Sikh separatist movement grew wider, which later erupted into an unprecedented bilateral diplomatic row. Moreover, India used the G20 presidency to project normalcy in the disputed areas.
In fact, India denies the Kashmiris under its jurisdiction their fundamental right of self-determination, and this is why, under an anti-Muslim ruling party at the helm of affairs, it did not support the call for ceasefire in Gaza.
The anti-Muslim climate that the BJP under Narendara Modi is creating in India and projecting it abroad is the biggest barrier to successful materialization of IMEC. The independent research institute Hindu Watch has also noted the alarming surge in anti-Muslim violence and crimes in India under the BJP.
In the short run, Hindutva-led forays might serve the political agenda of the BJP, but in the long run, it cannot ensure the peace and stability crucial for success of economic initiatives – not to mention IMEC.