Showing posts with label Contemporary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contemporary. Show all posts

There is barely any community on the planet that does not struggle with the issue of criminality. For a long time, people have accepted criminal behavior as a natural occurrence. Even if all of the members of a community possessed ideal characteristics, there would still be instances of people breaking the rules that govern that society. In terms of facts, criminal activity is a persistent phenomena that adapts to the shifting social landscape. Conflicts, which finally lead to the occurrence of criminal activity, are stoked by the fact that various social groupings in a society have disparate interests, which are frequently incompatible with one another. The purpose of the system of criminal justice is to safeguard society from criminals by enforcing the penal laws that are currently in place against those who commit crimes.


Therefore, punishment has been considered a method for reducing the incidence of criminal behaviour, either by discouraging the potential offenders, by incapacitating the offenders and preventing them from repeating the offence, or by rehabilitating the offenders into law-abiding citizens. All of these are possible outcomes of the application of punishment. Criminalization refers to the practice of applying punishment strategies to actions that are considered anti-social. The issue of overcriminalization is currently one of the most significant difficulties that are faced by the criminal justice systems across the world.





Decriminalization is the removal of criminal penalties for drug law violations (usually possession for personal use). There has not been a discernible rise in the amount of drug usage, drug-related damage, or drug-related crime among nations that have implemented less harsh policies against drug possession in comparison to those that have adopted more punishing policies. For instance, a study conducted by the World Health Organization discovered that the United States had the highest lifetime drug usage rates by a significant margin, despite its severe policies. The researchers came to the conclusion that decriminalization has little or no influence on the rates of use.


According to the findings of several studies in the USA, those who are given harsher punishments are more likely to commit other crimes in the future. As per a review of over fifty studies that began in 1958, the rate of recidivism was higher for criminals who were sentenced to terms of more than 30 months on average than it was for convicts who got terms of less than 12.9 months. In contrast to sentences that are shorter, those that are longer don't seem to have much of a special deterrence to them. According to the findings of the research, repeat offenders are more likely to receive shorter sentences, but they do not become less likely over longer sentences.


Only when criminals are aware that they will be caught and punished for breaching the law are they likely to refrain from committing such offences. To put it another way, there is no connection between lower crime rates and the severity of punishment, regardless of how definite it is that the offender will receive that level of punishment. If a criminal does not anticipate being apprehended, then the severity of the punishment has no influence on whether or not they will be found guilty of their crime.


The reality of drug use in the jurisdiction in which the decriminalization of drug possession using maximum-quantity thresholds is being implemented should coincide with these thresholds. For instance, if the threshold limit is set too low, the policy may not have any effect at all; alternatively, it may result in an increase in the number of incarcerations or the amount of time spent behind bars. The expansion of harm reduction and treatment activities, including as medication-assisted therapy, should be accompanied by decriminalization efforts to ensure the most positive outcomes.


NDPS and Criminalization


The Indian government initially passed the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) in 1985. Since then, the law has been amended three times: in 1989, 2001, and most recently (2014). In India, people who trade narcotics will be subject to severe punishments, while drug users will be offered rehabilitation services. It is prohibited to produce, cultivate, sell, purchase, import, export, and consume narcotics, psychotropic substances, and any derivatives of those substances. This is done as part of an attempt to combat the international trafficking of drugs and the abuse of drugs.


The NDPS Act, once it became public knowledge, advocated heavy punishments for the trafficking of drugs while also expanding its ability to enforce international treaties to which India is a signatory and to direct psychoactive substances. The NDPS is mostly corrective in nature, serving to control the pharmaceutical industry. Initially, the Act did not prohibit the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. As a result of staunch activism, the death penalty was replaced in the amendment that was passed in 2014 with a punishment of jail for a period of thirty years.


In order to improve upon the NDPS Act, which had been in effect since 1977, the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was passed into law in 1988. A significant component of the legislation mandates the indefinite incarceration of those who are thought to be involved in or suspected of engaging in narcotics trafficking.


On one hand, those who advocate for Human Rights contend that the use of the death penalty is never acceptable, not even in the most exceptional of situations. The United Nations Human Rights Commission, requested in 1997 that India restrict the use of the death penalty to just the gravest of offences, with the ultimate objective of doing away with the practise altogether.


As a means to reduce illegal drug sales, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) employs a variety of medical controls, all of which have been criticized by the UNODC. Theft of opium by an authorized grower, unapproved trade in opiates and neuropsychiatric substances, outside management of opiates and psychotropic substances, funding of unlawful dealing, and detention of responsible parties are all violations stated in Section 31-A of the Act.


As a direct consequence of this, a person in a position of authority is required to effect behavioral adjustments in the offender. When generally determining the appropriate punishment, it is customarily necessary to take into account all of the relevant information, including how the general public feels about the predicament.


Because the minimum mandatory punishment is ten years in prison, and because courts have been able to secure a large number of drug sellers on specialized grounds, there has been a practical reluctance to enforce such harsh regulations. This is due to the fact that the minimum mandatory punishment is ten years in prison. Despite the lesser degree of discipline, it was not difficult to get convictions under the Opium Act and the Dangerous Drugs Act in the end. These laws deal with illegal drugs.


Cannabis and opium have been used for a very long time, despite the fact that there are conservative and social segments of the population in this country who are of the opinion that these narcotics should not be regarded in the same manner as heroin and cocaine.


When law enforcement organizations operate at lower levels, it might be challenging for them to accept the precise procedural provisions of the NDPS Act because they do not comprehend them. Due to that, a significant number of drug offenders are given the opportunity to go free due to procedural errors.



It is also required to do a reexamination of the legal framework that applies to those who use drugs. In all honesty, this Act does not differentiate between a user and a dealer in any way. "Controlled Delivery" is a tactic that has shown to be particularly effective in the fight against illegal drug use. The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 does not contain any particular provision with regard to this matter, despite the fact that the NDPS Act mandates the utilization of a controlled mode of transportation.


NDPS offenses, along with other financial offenses, should be reviewed in accordance with international standards. This will ensure that legal executives are prepared to bring misbehavior even in frivolous financial offenses, to the scaffold, and will increase the likelihood that this issue of drug dependency in Indian society will be discovered and rightly treated.



As a result of the stringent limitations imposed by the NDPS Act, opiate drugs such as opium, heroin, and hashish are extremely difficult to acquire. People who use drugs are looking for new places to go in order to get their intoxication, while at the same time attempting to escape authorities.


In conclusion, the nature of criminalization is such that it warrants a much more nuanced understanding of its effects on the usage of drugs or even just the possession of drugs. Here, the approach taken by the NDPS act is far from ideal and needs a review in light of studies on misguided criminalization as well as recommendations in alignment with Human Rights jurisprudence. 

This Blog is Authored by Shruti Avinash, a third year student of the NALSAR University of Law.

Image Source


          “Your daughter seems to be quite young, teach her the household work. Teach her to cook properly. It’s the time to get her married.” Commonly these are the words of people when they refer a girl of 18. There is just the opinion that a girl is born to do the household chores, but this kind of old mentality is challenged by the ambitious decision of the NDA government.  The Prohibition of Infant Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, aims to raise the legal marriage age for women from 18 to 21, while also addressing maternal mortality, child mortality, and nutritional problems associated with underage marriages.


Statistics and arguments-

          According to the National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5), roughly a quarter of women between the ages of 20 and 24 at 18 or even before they turn 18. The situation is significantly worse in rural areas, where underage marriage is prevalent at 27%. In such an early age the young girls carry the burden of family and children which they are not at all mentally prepared for. Despite the fact that child marriage is illegal, statistics demonstrate that underage weddings are still a severe problem. Given the data by the various government sites, the question is whether raising the marriage age will result in true women’s empowerment, gender equality, more female labour market participation, autonomy, and better health outcomes for women and children. Gender parity is a way of life, not only a formal recognition of women’s rights. Equalizing the marriage age for men and women is a flimsy egalitarian ideal that does not lead to real empowerment but it can definitely open the doors of higher education and many other opportunities for the young girls. A study produced by the NCRB in 2018 addressed on gender-based violence:   Every 1.7 minutes, a woman is the victim of a crime, and every 4.4 minutes, she is the victim of domestic abuse. It is likely that after the change in the laws there will be awareness among the women about their rights, courage to get those rights and thus hopes to get these numbers reduced. (Will increasing marriage age to 21 help women?, n.d.) [1]


Legal perspective-

           Now let’s have the legal perspective. According to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the bride must be 18 years old and the groom must be 21 years old. While in the Islamic law, the marriage of a minor who has achieved puberty is permitted. Women and men must be 18 and 21 years old, respectively, to agree to marry, according to the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006. It is expected that these laws will be amended in order to implement the new marriage age which is 21 for both men and women irrespective of their religion.

          According to the newly released National Family Health Survey (NFHS), child marriage has declined slightly in the country, from 27% in 2015-16 to 23% in 2019-20, but the government is working to lower it even more. There has been much awareness about this on the ground level all because of the efforts of government, NGO’s and many other awareness camps conducted in schools as well as villages.


The Government’s stand-

          In June 2020, the Ministry of Women and Child Development formed a working force to look at the link between marriage age and issues including women's nutrition, anaemia prevalence, IMR, MMR, and other social indicators. The group was directed by former Samata Party president Jaya Jaitly and includes NITI Aayog member (Health) Dr V K Paul and secretaries from different ministries. The committee was to examine at raising the marriage age and the effects on women’s and children’s health, as well as methods to improve women’s educational possibilities as well as empowering them and opening the doors of new opportunities for them. The committee was also expected to suggest a schedule for the government to adopt the policy, as well as any changes to existing legislation that would be necessary. Based on comments and opinions from young adults from 16 colleges around the country, the committee has recommended that the marriage age be raised to 21 years.[2] A total of 15 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) were also enlisted to reach out to young adults in remote locations and marginalised populations. Members of the group reported hearing from youngsters of various religions, as well as from rural and urban regions. (Raising legal age of marriage for women: the law, the reasons and the criticism, n.d.)

          It has been observed several times that delaying marriage and motherhood is not just due to legal age there are many other factors too. But it also can’t be denied that early marriage is the major factor for the same. On the other side, there is a well-established link between academic success and early marriage. Females are said to drop out of elementary school owing to a lack of options for higher education and subsequently marry off, according to experts. According to a research conducted by the International Centre for Research on Women, females who have dropped out of school are 3.4 times more likely than those who are still in school to get married or have their wedding date set (ICRW). According to the UNFPA's State of the World Report 2020, 51% of young women in India with no education and 47% of those with only a primary education married by the age of 18, compared to 29% of young women with a secondary education and 4% with a post-secondary education.



          Through this new bill, women will be free from the age barrier of 18 and for them the doors of higher education will be open.  Women with higher levels of education are also more prepared to make family decisions and instil safe sex, family planning, and abortion practises in their children and thus this majorly leads to the gender neutrality.




·       Raising legal age of marriage for women: the law, the reasons and the criticism. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Indian Express:


·       Will increasing marriage age to 21 help women? (n.d.). Retrieved from The New Indian Express:,such%20as%20maternal%20mortality%20rate%20


Authored by- Aishwarya Patil, Second year, Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad



A live-in relationship is a living arrangement between two people who do not want to marry but want to live together.”“In the recent decade, India has seen a significant shift in how the current generation views their relationships.”“Today many couples live together before their marriage for various reasons, such as checking whether they are compatible with each other or not.”“We have seen cases where couples seek divorce after getting married because they were not aware of certain things about one another or could not live together.[i]With society loosening up about pre-marital sex and live-in relationships, the stigma that once surrounded couples in live-in relationships has begun to dissipate.”“Today's generation is torn between two crucial terms: marriage and living together, sometimes known as cohabitation.”“Rather than getting married, more couples are opting for cohabitation, commonly known as a live-in relationship.”“The younger generation in India has decided to accept the practice of live-in relationships as a result of the acceptance and adoption of several western traditions.”“A variety of factors have led to the slow acceptance of such cohabitation in society.”“These factors are as follows:

·       Education and awareness.

·       Introduction of globalization.

·       The right to freedom and privacy.

There is no explicit legislation in India that regulates cohabitationrelationships.”“In a number of judgments, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has used the opportunity to clarify the nature and scope of connections.”“According to the Indian Court's established legal definition, a live-in relationship is an arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles marriage.[ii]

Current Status of Cohabitation in India

In India, there is no specific law that governs cohabitation.”“Despite the lack of legislation addressing cohabitation, the sections of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, which protect all women in domestic partnerships, including cohabiting women, are praiseworthy.” “The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 defines a domestic relationship as one in which two persons lived or are living together or shared a household under a number of circumstances, including marriage, consanguinity, a connection that resembles marriage, and so on.” “The inclusion of partnerships that are similar to or in the nature of marriage allows women who are cohabiting or living with their partners to seek remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”“Women in these types of relationships are especially vulnerable and exploited, both physically and mentally.” “To safeguard the safety of couples that join cohabitation, it is critical for the country's legislators to adopt separate laws that governs these partnerships by defining the partners' rights, responsibilities, and remedies.”“However, this would go against one of the primary reasons why the younger generation favours cohabitation or live-in relationships to marriage.”“The lack of any legal or societal formalities or requirements is the cause for this.Couples in cohabitation are free to initiate or end their relationship whenever they want, with no duties to complete throughout either process.”“As a result, enacting legislation would not only ensure rights but also impose obligations on partners. Despite the apparent lack of legislation on cohabitation, Indian courts have expressed sympathy with the new notion through their judgements, through various judgments that ambiguously identify the rights of cohabiting couples.

Not all live-in relationships are lawfully deemed to be marriage-like, and specific criteria must be met for cohabitation to be considered a marriage-like relationship.

In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal[iii], the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that in order for a relationship to be in the nature of marriage under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it must meet certain basic conditions.”“Couples must live together and not only spend weekends together or have a one-night stand to be considered in a domestic relationship.”“The Supreme Court also ruled that a connection formed solely for the sake of financial support, sexual pleasure, or assistance does not qualify as a domestic relationship.”“In this case, the Court laid down following conditions from which someone can determine that if a relationship resembles marriage:

a)     In front of society, the couple must act as husband and wife.

b)     They must be legally able to marry.

c)     The cohabitation must be voluntary, and the couple must show themselves to society as a married couple.

d)     To enter into a lawful marriage, the partners must be competent.

Under Personal Laws, couples in a live-in relationship are not automatically awarded inherited rights to their partners' property.”“The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the other hand, ruled that people who have been cohabiting for a reasonable amount of time are entitled to inherit property from their partner.”“Despite its ambiguity, the ruling sets a precedent for future instances involving inheritance between partners in a live-in relationship.[iv]

Protection of Women & their Maintenance

In Virendra Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Kumar[v], the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that unmarried women cohabiting with their partners or in a cohabitationrelationship have the same rights and remedies that were previously only available to married women.”“However, the recognition indicated above is insufficient to tackle the challenges that develop in live-in relationships.”“The Supreme Court accorded live relationships legal status, although this status does not address issues such as the legality of children born from such relationships, the entitlement to maintenance, alimony, and inheritance, among others.

Because women in live-in relationships have no legal recourse, Indian courts have expanded the definition of maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code.”“Hence, Section 125 was enacted to offer lady partners in or out of marriage a legal right to support.”“The court recently ordered a sum of 40 lakhs as maintenance to women in live-in relationships in the case of Ajay Bhardwaj v. Jyotsana[vi].”“The court also cited the Malimath Committee's 'Reforms in the Criminal Justice System' report from 2003, which proposed that the word 'wife' in section 125 CrPC be modified to include a woman who has lived with a man like his wife for a significant period of time.”“The court also cited the Malimath Committee's 'Reforms in the Criminal Justice System' report from 2003, which proposed that the word 'wife' in section 125 CrPC be modified to include a woman who has lived with a man like his wife for a significant period of time.”“In the case of Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and others[vii], the court affirmed the National Commission for Women's recommendation to the Ministry of Women and Child Development that women can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, 1973.

Until recently, only a legally married wife was entitled to maintenance.”“In the case of Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary[viii], however, it was decided that marriage might be implied for the purposes of giving support to a man and a woman who had been cohabiting for a long period.”“The Supreme Court's judgement did not apply to all live-in partnerships.”“The prevention of domestic violence between partners is another facet of cohabitation.” “Couples who are cohabiting as well as those who are legally married are treated equally here.”“The Domestic Violence Act of 2005, which was passed in 2006, gave all people in domestic partnerships equal status.”“Domestic relationships are defined as a relationship in which two individuals lived or are living together or shared a household under a variety of circumstances such as marriage, consanguinity, relationship resembling marriage, and so on, according to Section 2(f) of the act.”“The Act aims to give wives, as well as women in live-in relationships who share the household, access to remedies.”“A live-in relationship cannot be ended in any formal way.”“The law specifies the grounds for entering into a live-in relationship by "chosen or circumstance," however there is still some ambiguity when it comes to exiting a live-in relationship.

Status of Children born from the Cohabitation

Only a child born in a recognized marriage is regarded a legitimate child, according to Section 112 of the Evidence Act, making children born in live-in relationships illegitimate.”“In Tulsa v. Durghatiya[ix], the Supreme Court ruled that children born out of live-in partnerships are no longer regarded illegitimate in the eyes of the law.”“Nonetheless, in Dimple Gupta v. Rajiv Gupta[x], the court held in favour of the above-mentioned perspective that children from live-in partnerships have a right to support.

The Supreme Court ruled that a newborn born within a live-in relationship is only entitled to a part of the parent's self-acquired property and cannot claim inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary’s property.”“In accordance with provision of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, illegitimate offspring must be considered as legitimate for all practical reasons, including succession to their parents' property.”“They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other connection using this rule, which is limited to the attributes of the parents in its application.”“Finally, couples in live-in relationships are unable to adopt children. There is no legal basis for them to do so.”“However, the central adoption resource authority has made it illegal for couples to adopt a child while still living together.


So far, the laws and rules governing live-in relationships have proven to be vague and imprecise.”“This necessitates quick changes to India's cohabitation rules.”“Though in certain areas, cohabitation is recognized the same as marriage, in other cases, partners who choose to cohabit do not receive the same privileges as married couples.”“Reforms must be implemented not just in the country's laws, but also in society as a whole.”“Live-in relationships are still considered immoral and unacceptable by a huge majority of the country's population.

It is also clear that, despite the fact that there are no specific laws governing live-in relationships, the country's courts have shown support for them and established guidelines to manage them.”“However, as previously noted, these judgments and rules are insufficient for live-in partners to build a compelling case in a court of law and go to great measures to prove cohabitation to the court.”“The need for a strict rule controlling live-in partnerships is urgent, as it will safeguard not only the people involved in the relationship, but also the children born out of it, who will be future citizens of the country.

To determine the rights and responsibilities of both cohabiting parties, strict norms must be established.”“Given the similarities in the nature of both partnerships, it is impossible to treat cohabitation and marriage as the same and award both relationships the same legal status.”“However, because cohabitation is in the nature of marriage, it must be treated similarly to marriages.”“Partners who are not married but live together and act as though they are married must be granted the same legal status as married couples.

Though cohabitation is simple to begin because of the independence and freedom it provides, there are some limitations and drawbacks, and a legislation is needed to solve these inconsistencies.

This Blog is written by Arryan Mohanty2nd year student from Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur

[ii]Shweta Gupta, Issues & Challenges involved in Live-in Relationships in India, Women and the law in India with special reference to live in relationships, Shodhganga,

[iii] 2010 AIR SCW 6731

[iv] Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 238

[v](2011) 1 SCC 141

[vi]2016 SCC P&H 9707

[vii] 2009 CriLJ. 889

[viii] AIR 1985 SC 765

[ix]2008 AIR SCW 1148

[x](2007) AIR SC 1139

Image Source


It has been seen often that countries wage war when all the diplomatic channels fail, and there is no other option to protect self-interest other than engaging in a conflict.

After the devastating effect of World War 2, governments have realised the disastrous economic implications that took place impacting the parties involved and the whole world. When the soldiers fail to protect their country, then the innocent civilians bear the consequences in the form of food crisis, rape, and forced migration, to name a few.

Mass Genocide and wiping out of community is another aspect of war leading to large scale humanitarian crisis. Same situation occurs in Ukraine failing the basic purpose of United Nations to maintain international peace and security.

Division in Europe

Involvement of Geopolitics and Trade

Western hypocrisy and division among European countries are one of the key reasons resulting in a humanitarian crisis. It is to be noted that Russia is the third-largest supplier of Natural Gas and Europe consumes 75% of it. Moreover, Europe purchases 48% of crude oil from Russia. Thus, any sanctions on Russia hurt Europe too which could ultimately cripple its energy supplies.[1]

In 2008, Germany blocked the entry of Ukraine in NATO considering its trade relations with Russia; while other members of NATO supported the resolution. Ukraine's repeated efforts to join NATO have been failed due to some way or the other.

Western Hypocrisy- Money over Principles

Today Western countries talk about sanctions, about western solidarity. But are they walking the talk? The US imports 16% of its uranium from Russia, but their sanction does not touch Uranium, imposing a sanction on Uranium will cost US 1 billion dollar.[2] US still imports fertilizers, potash, diamond, phosphate and urea because it has been listed as vital products. As far as Russian oil is concerned during the Ukraine war, the US bought 100,000 barrels a day, which is 43% jump.[3]

Carrot of NATO

The mistake that the Ukrainians have made is that they let their soil used for all kinds of geopolitical experimentation with the Western countries due to the bait of NATO. Reports of Ukraine joining NATO have rattled Russia, which took it as a serious provocation by the west to its borders.

Humanitarian Crisis and War Crime

Bucha Killings

Bucha is a city in Ukraine which was under Russian control and then later taken back by Ukrainians. Reports have been surfaced of mass grave, people with tied hands and women being brutally raped. These incidents pave the way for the international community to suspend Russia from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Moreover, many Ukrainians have fled to neighbouring countries to protect their lives. Almost 3.7 million refugees have fled Ukraine since the escalation of conflict on 24th Feb. Among them, 374,059 have been displaced to Moldova.[4]

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees came into action and declared Ukraine a Level 3 emergency. They are working on the ground to provide humanitarian assistance.

Global Economic Impact

This conflict has appended commodity markets from oil to gas and wheat, leading to the prospects of an increase in inflationary pressure on countries trying to revive their economic growth after the pandemic. Crude oil prices continue to rise and oil companies like shell and BP are winding up their operations in Russia.

It is to be noted that Russia is the world’s third largest oil producer and second most influential member of the OPEC, plus alliance behind Saudi Arabia.

Sanctions imposed by the United States and other western countries on Russia particularly banning some Russian banks from the swift global financial payment system is expected to make it more cumbersome for many companies to do any kind of business with Russia. Europe suffers the most due to sanctions because of its huge energy purchases.

As sanction cripple Russian economy, the Russian President decided to sell Natural gas and oil with its own currency. It has also started selling crude oil at discounted rates to India to fuel his economy.

Today, the entire world is interconnected and disruption of anything from anywhere leads to disruption of the entire supply chain. Also, the transportation of oil supply and gas pipelines impact Europe as it depends on almost one-fourth of its needs. Ukraine is also a big producer of wheat, sunflower and rare earth minerals; all these situations are extremely complex for the world economy which is resulting in increased inflationary pressures.

BRICS payment system

Western sanctions have led BRICS countries to give a thought on payment mechanism. Russia emphasizes other countries to use Chinese currency Yuan for payment to its oil and gas sectors. Russia is in talks with India and China to find ways to challenge the US dollar in the future. Today, the world is moving from unipolar to multipolar, where the power has distributed among several states rather than being dominated by one.

Resolution: Condemnation or Arbitration

As the war continue for over 50 days, cold war politics is also making a comeback, there are two clear power blocks on one side we have the anti-Russia camp led by the United States aided by the collective might of NATO supported by a host of democratic countries together they are painting this war as a fight between autocracy and democracy. Whereas, the pro-Russia camp Belarus, Armenia, central Asian republics also Syria, North Korea and Cuba some sworn enemy of the US. All these countries blame western hegemony and NATO expansionism for this crisis.

However, there are countries which are in neither camp and there are many such who don’t want to take sides in this war, but they’re under immense pressure to do so. On top of this pressure list is India, which share ties with both camps.

The world is trying hard to pressure India to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But, so far, it’s been firm in exercising its strategic autonomy on at least three occasions. India has abstained from voting on resolutions condemning Russia; first at United Nations Security Council, UN general Assembly and again at UN human rights council. On every occasion, India called for an immediate ceasefire, stressed on peaceful co-existence and urged for diplomatic talks.

National Interest

Undoubtedly, India’s national interest also lies with Russia as Russia is its biggest defence partner and time-tested strategic ally. But unintendedly, India’s abstentions have upset the west the most, as they say, India has chosen the aggressors’ side. New Delhi says it has only acted in National Interest as its priority was to evacuate its citizens 20,000 of them from Ukraine, mostly students, and the speed at which this crisis unfolded made evacuation an enormous challenge. It could not risk the safety of its citizens, it needed security assurances from both sides to evacuate its people.

Evacuation plan worked only because India kept its lines of communication with Russia open.

India has two hostile nuclear-armed neighbours. If India sides with the US, then it will push Russia further into China’s embrace and that’s the last thing we want.

Russia-Ukraine direct talks

It took a campaign led by western countries into play; one to condemn Russia and then suspend it from various international organisations. Such actions will only drift away from the main purpose of the Ukrainian President to hold direct talks of President Vladimir Putin.

Suppose for a moment India agrees to condemn Russia. What difference will it make? Europe has been condemning Russia has the war stopped. America has been threatening Russia has the war stopped.

Voting against Russia will not stop the war, but arbitration and mediation will. Today, India is sitting on the fence and has the privilege of creating an atmosphere to mediate with both the parties.

Authorized by

Shashwat Raj, student at Asian Law College, Noida

[1] US Energy Information Administration [Dec 13, 2021]

[2]Justice Calma, The US can’t seem to quit Russian Uranium The Verge [Mar 31, 2022]