Omair Ahmad 
Even by the low standards of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign visits, which have featured more photo opportunities than any actual accomplishments, the outcomes of his visit to Ukraine were paltry. There was no major business deal announced – the train of crony capitalists were conspicuous in their absence, nor was there any strategic deal or diplomatic breakthrough.
Foreign policy is about the furtherance of domestic priorities (security, wealth and well-being of citizens) on the world stage, and yet the first trip by an Indian prime minister to Ukraine in modern history supplied nothing on these fronts.
Of course, it is hard to see how there were any possibilities in this regard in the first place. Ukraine is in the midst of a devastating war after the Russian invasion. Its economy and military are critically dependent on support from the United States and the European Union. It has little to offer at such a time, and if it had, the US and the EU would be first in line. To expect a deal that would benefit India’s domestic needs in such circumstances would be delusional.
There are, of course, the issues of war and peace. An end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is in the larger Indian strategic interest. For a poor country that does not export arms in any significant quantity, any outbreak of hostilities is costly to Indian interests. We not only lose the chance to trade but also have to evacuate our citizens from war zones, and they lose opportunities in education and employment that are not available in the domestic economy.
Much was made about the possibility that Modi’s visit could help nudge an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, and Modi himself auditioned for the role of peacemaker, saying, “I want to assure you that India is ready to play an active role in any efforts towards peace. If I can play any role in this personally, I will do that I want to assure you as a friend.”
The hard reality, though, is that Modi can’t really play much of a role. Only a few months ago he was in Russia, hoping to convince Putin that the Russian Army should release Indians duped into serving in the war. The Russians listened and made some placatory noises, but there has been no flight of war-weary Indians returning from somebody else’s war. If this is the extent of Modi’s leverage when it comes to Indian citizens, one can only imagine how miniscule it is when it comes to a war that Putin has defined in existential terms.
Maybe if India had been speaking for a broader grouping, say on behalf of the Global South and laid out how developing countries have had to pay severe costs through food inflation and disrupted markets, there would have been something of worth. India could have leveraged its historic position as one of the leading countries of the non-aligned movement to make a broader argument on issues important to the wider world.
But Modi made no such effort or commitment, and it would have been a bad time to do so. Ukraine’s recent declaration that it had given intelligence input to jihadis in Mali, leading to the death of a significant number of Malian security and Russia’s Wagner mercenaries, has led to significant repercussions in Africa. Senegal called the Ukrainian ambassador for a rebuke, and Mali cut ties with Ukraine.
In the end, Modi’s bland statements about the need for peace were hardly different from those of China, which has far more influence with Russia, and whose leader was not hugging Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Ukraine was expanding the war into Russian territory.
How the US and Bangladesh figure in the Indian scheme of things
So, if not for domestic gains or international leverage, why was Modi in Kyiy?
A clue can be found in the release of details of a phone call between US President Joe Biden and Modi just a few days after Modi’s Ukraine visit. While the White House statement only spoke of Modi’s visit to Ukraine (and Poland), Modi’s tweet on the issue emphasised the situation in Bangladesh as well.
A cynical reading would be that Modi was trying to milk some goodwill from the US for his trip to Ukraine to beg for help dealing with the mess of his policy vis-à-vis Bangladesh. By all accounts, it was the US that was pushing for more substantive democracy in Bangladesh while India stubbornly chose to support the increasingly authoritarian and discredited Sheikh Hasina-led government. Now India is flailing around in its own neighbourhood and desperately seeking support.
To be fair, India remains a significant actor despite a series of diplomatic setbacks under the current regime. The sheer size of its economy, growing in spite of the government in most cases, makes it an important international actor for any country to have on its side.
A successful foreign policy could have used this leverage to create greater opportunities for Indians, but under this regime, it seems to have been reduced to providing photo opportunities of Modi hugging foreign leaders (as a friend noted Modi hugs no Indians, even his ostensible allies) and cleaning up after his mistakes.