Shruti Jain
Introduction
In an era of escalating global tensions, India’s diplomatic stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict stands out as a blend of restraint and pragmatism. While the world watches polarized powers clash, India has charted its own course, urging dialogue over division. This approach echoes an ancient Jain philosophy—Anekantavada, the doctrine of multiple perspectives or pluralism.
The Research Journey: From Philosophy to Policy
Anekantavada is an important doctrine of Jainism that views reality as multifaceted. Unlike absolutist ideologies that demand a single truth, Anekantavada embraces complexity, suggesting that every perspective holds a piece of the puzzle.
Here primary sources are analysed: statements from India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), UN voting records, and diplomatic engagements since the conflict’s onset in February 2022. Qualitative content analysis is employed to sift through India’s official rhetoric, searching for themes of neutrality, dialogue, and pluralism. Next, a comparative discourse analysis is conducted, juxtaposing Russian and Ukrainian narratives to identify gaps and opportunities for mediation. Finally, a structured policy analysis classifies India’s actions—were they pluralist, as Anekantavada might suggest, or leaning toward absolutism?
The process was both methodical and revealing. Each statement, each abstention at the UN, became a thread in a larger tapestry. What emerged was a story of India navigating a polarized world with a philosophy rooted in its cultural heritage.
Key Findings: Anekantavada in Action
The research uncovered compelling insights. India’s diplomatic language consistently mirrors Anekantavada’s emphasis on dialogue and tolerance. Take, for instance, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s remarks at a 2022 UN meeting: “We are convinced that no solution can be found through violence; dialogue is the only way.” This isn’t mere rhetoric—India’s abstentions from UN resolutions condemning Russia reflect a refusal to take sides, urging all parties toward negotiation instead.
Delving into the Russian and Ukrainian narratives revealed a stark divide. Russia justifies its actions as a defense against NATO expansion, framing the conflict as a security imperative. Ukraine, meanwhile, asserts its sovereign right to exist, decrying Russian aggression as a
violation of international norms. These opposing views are a deadlock—yet they also signal a mediation opportunity. Anekantavada suggests focusing on shared interests, like regional stability or economic recovery, rather than entrenching in binary blame.
The structured policy analysis painted a nuanced picture. India’s pluralist tendencies shine through in its G20 engagements, where it has pushed for inclusive dialogue, and in its humanitarian aid to Ukraine, signaling empathy without condemnation. Yet, there’s a gap: India has hesitated to propose concrete peace initiatives. This reluctance hints at a missed chance to fully embody Anekantavada’s potential as a mediation tool.
Implications: A New Diplomatic Frontier
What if India leaned fully into an Anekantavada-based approach? The implications are transformative. Rather than remaining a neutral observer, India could emerge as an active mediator, crafting non-binary strategies to de-escalate the Russia-Ukraine conflict. India can propose a phased ceasefire tied to economic incentives—neither endorsing Russia’s actions nor isolating it entirely, but reframing the conversation around mutual gains.
This isn’t wishful thinking; it’s grounded in precedent. India’s mediation in the Korean War armistice talks of the 1950s showcased its ability to navigate complex disputes. An Anekantavada inspired framework could modernize this role, offering a fresh alternative to Western-led diplomacy, which often prioritizes moral absolutes over pragmatic compromise.
Yet, challenges loom. Pluralism can falter where moral clarity is demanded—Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory, for example, tests the limits of neutrality. Critics might argue that Anekantavada risks ambiguity, diluting accountability in the face of aggression. Balancing ethical imperatives with diplomatic flexibility is no small feat, and India must tread carefully to avoid perceptions of indifference.
Comparatively, other nations’ approaches highlight Anekantavada’s uniqueness. The United States, for instance, has taken a firm stance against Russia, prioritizing sanctions over dialogue. China, while neutral, leans toward strategic alignment with Russia. India’s pluralism, by contrast, seeks neither alliance nor confrontation, aligning with Anekantavada’s rejection of absolutes.
The Experience: Lessons from Complexity
This research is an interplay of philosophy and power. Anekantavada isn’t just a diplomatic tool; it’s a mindset. It demands listening to all sides, even when they clash, and finding common ground amid chaos.
While analyzing Jaishankar’s speeches, his measured tone—firm yet open—mirrored the Jain sages’ approach to debate: assertive, yet never dismissive. It was a reminder that diplomacy, like philosophy, thrives on nuance.
Conclusion: A Call to Pluralism
India’s response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, steeped in Anekantavada’s pluralist ethos, offers more than a case study—it’s a blueprint. By embracing this framework, India could elevate its global influence, turning neutrality into a proactive force for peace. The world, increasingly fractured by ideological divides, needs such alternatives.
About the contributor: Shruti Jain is a dedicated research scholar in Political Science, currently pursuing her PhD with a focus on indigenous political thought, sustainability, and South Asian diplomacy. She is a fellow at DFPGYF Diplomacy, Foreign Policy & Geopolitics Youth Fellowship, IMPRI.
Acknowledgements: The author extends sincere gratitude to Impact and Policy Research Institute India team for reviewing the article and for providing the opportunity to write the article.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI
AI, Digital Sovereignty, and Geopolitics: India’s Strategic Positioning Between the U.S. and China
Bridging the Cybersecurity Knowledge Gap: A Policy Perspective
