From Mian Channu to Ukraine: India’s Dangerous Dance with Arms Trade

With its growing economy and arms industry, India has begun to pursue global objectives that are impacting global security. It is a rising state that allies with the United States to contain China but refuses to be accountable for its non-compliance with international standards, positioning itself as a country that avoids accountability and responsibility. This attitude reflects a reckless disregard for international peace. The irony is that it has also started to use its arms industry as a tool to gain geopolitical leverage.

More recently, it has been reported by Reuters that according to 11 Indian and the European government and defense industry officials, as well as a Reuters analysis of commercially available customs data, artillery shells sold by Indian arms makers have been diverted by the European customers to Ukraine, and New Delhi has not intervened to stop the trade despite protests from Moscow. The sources and the customs statistics indicate that the munitions movement to support Ukraine’s defense against Russia has been going on for more than a year.  New Delhi’s plain denial in this regard, calling the report “misleading” and “inaccurate” speaks about its irresponsible behavior. This situation raises important questions about India’s role in global security dynamics and its commitment to responsible state behavior.

This opinion article presents factual data obtained from authentic sources that demonstrate how India’s aspirations to maintain ties with both the West and Russia using its arms industry are threatening global peace and security. Overlooking such irresponsible behavior could have serious consequences for the international community.

Although India has exhibited irresponsible behavior for a long time, the incident that exemplified its extreme irresponsibility occurred in March 2022, when an Indian missile landed in Mian Channu. The explanation provided by Indian officials—that it was accidentally launched—seems implausible; if true, it poses a greater danger to global security than one can imagine. Such irresponsible behavior could trigger a nuclear war in the region, leading to casualties and chaos worldwide, all because a nuclear state is failing to act responsibly. This adventurism undermines Pakistan’s deterrent capability and compels it to consider a reaction. It was only Islamabad’s pragmatism that prevented an escalation into nuclear conflict; otherwise, India had crossed all bounds of irresponsibility.

Pakistan then also warned against underestimating the potential that India’s nuclear weapons could end up in the hands of rogue groups and raised concerns about signs that the country’s nuclear thinking was in the hands of extremist elements. It also rightly claimed that this concern had been made worse by the security establishment’s adoption of an aggressive and strategic mindset fostered by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Pakistan was left with the burden of upholding strategic stability in this difficult strategic environment, and it remained dedicated to accomplishing this goal.

The recent case of India’s irresponsible behavior regarding the diversion of its artillery shells to Ukraine highlights its reckless actions and has multiple implications for global security. First, India has clearly disregarded the end-user obligations associated with its arms exports. This act causes an erosion of non-proliferation norms, non-compliance with international regulations, and deviations from liberal values, ultimately undermining the efforts of the international community to prevent the proliferation of arms, particularly among states with nuclear capabilities. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine War, hypocritically attempting to convince Russia of its favorable alliance while simultaneously providing arms to Ukraine benefits no one but perhaps India alone, thereby diluting the global commitment to non-proliferation.

Second, India’s arms exports to conflict zones like Ukraine and Myanmar’s military junta can exacerbate tensions not only in the Ukrainian and Russian regions but also in South Asia. As, New Delhi views China as a competitor that challenges its hegemonic ambitions and regards Pakistan as a historical rival, with all three countries being nuclear powers. India’s global ambitions in arms exporting will ultimately lead Islamabad and Beijing to perceive a threat, prompting them to enhance their military capabilities to avoid a dilution of their deterrence. This situation could result in an arms race in South Asia, creating conditions conducive to conflict.

Fourth, New Delhi’s push to expand its arms exports amid the Russia-Ukraine War could alter the dynamics of the global arms market. This may encourage other nations to follow suit, ultimately leading to increased competition and potentially destabilizing regions that are already fraught with conflict or in war-like situations. The situation sets a concerning precedent where a nuclear-capable state can supply arms to conflict zones with little or no accountability. This could also embolden other nations to engage in similar practices, increasing the likelihood of conflicts being fueled by external arms supplies.

Fifth, this incident raises serious questions about the effectiveness and legitimacy of the existing international regulatory frameworks that govern arms sales and transfers. If major states like India can circumvent these norms without repercussions, it will pose a serious question on the effectiveness of arms control segments.

Sixth, India’s irresponsible behavior in this case increases the risk of miscalculations and misunderstandings in an already volatile environment like Ukraine. Such ambitious moves can exacerbate ongoing conflicts, as any perceived support for one side in a conflict could provoke retaliatory actions from adversaries, increasing the risk of military confrontations.

To conclude, New Delhi’s irresponsible behavior as a nuclear state has once again raised alarms about the possibility that one nation can challenge global peace if left unheeded. In their utter ignorance, the policymakers in India’s security establishment believe their actions serve the national interest, while they are, in fact, posing threats to global security. They are rarely held accountable, which emboldens them to repeat such irresponsibility and adventurism whenever they deem fit, only to later deny their actions or label them as accidents. The international community should urge India to abide by international restraints and authorize the end-user obligations. Particularly, the US must realize that, even if they consider India as its ‘net security provider’ against China, its violation of international norms will lead to strategic chain reactions that will incentivize other rogue nations to follow suit which in large have fallouts for the US-led international order. They must also clearly discourage such actions before it is too late.