India’s Complex Relationship with Syria: A Diplomatic Balancing Act
For over a decade, Syria has been synonymous with destruction and suffering. The brutal civil war that began in 2011 as a revolt against Bashar al-Assad’s oppressive regime has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions. Yet, amid global isolation and widespread condemnation of Assad, India has maintained an unusual partnership with Syria, rooted in historical ties and pragmatic interests. As Assad’s government teeters on the brink of collapse, this relationship raises questions about India’s strategic calculations in the region and its plans for a post-Assad Syria.
Bashar al-Assad, one of the world’s most despised dictators, has been accused of horrific crimes, including using chemical weapons against his people and overseeing mass arrests and torture. His regime has been ostracized by much of the international community. Expelled from the Arab League in 2011 and targeted by Western sanctions, Assad’s isolation deepened as opposition forces and extremist groups tore Syria apart. Yet, India remained one of the few nations to sustain ties with his government.
India has consistently voted against international sanctions targeting Assad at the United Nations, provided millions in humanitarian aid, and maintained high-level diplomatic engagements. In 2023, Syria’s foreign minister visited India, and top Indian diplomats reciprocated. Even after devastating earthquakes struck Syria that year, India extended aid directly to Assad’s regime.
Why does India, a democracy with aspirations of global leadership, continue to engage with a dictator like Assad? The answer lies in a mix of historical alliances, strategic interests, and regional stability.
India and Syria’s relationship dates back decades. Both were founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement, and India’s foreign policy after independence aligned with pro-Arab positions. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee nurtured ties with Syria, forging connections with Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, and his Ba’athist government.
By the time the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, India was deeply invested in the country. One notable project was the $240 million Tishreen Power Plant, a testament to India’s long standing collaboration with Assad’s regime. These historical ties have shaped India’s reluctance to abandon Syria, even as the country descended into chaos.
The Arab Spring, which inspired uprisings across the Middle East, brought both hope and turmoil. In Libya, the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi led not to democracy but to protracted conflict and instability. For India, the lesson was clear: regime change through external intervention often backfires.
When the Syrian civil war began, India adopted a cautious stance, opposing foreign interference and calling for dialogue between warring factions. At the UN, India refused to endorse sanctions or military actions targeting Assad, emphasizing a balanced approach. This policy was driven by India’s broader Middle Eastern interests, including energy security, investments, and the safety of nearly nine million Indian citizens living in the region.
A stable Middle East is crucial for India’s economic and geopolitical goals. The fear that Assad’s fall might plunge Syria into further chaos—mirroring Libya’s trajectory—motivated India to prioritize stability over aligning with Western powers.
The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in 2014 added another layer to India’s Syria policy. As ISIS seized vast swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq, it became a global threat, carrying out attacks and inspiring extremist groups worldwide.
India, concerned about ISIS’s reach and its attempts to influence Indian youth, supported efforts to dismantle the terror group. While it refrained from direct military involvement, India tacitly backed Russia’s strikes against ISIS strongholds in Syria. The defeat of ISIS diminished one immediate threat, but the broader instability in Syria remained a concern.
Syria’s stance on Kashmir also plays a subtle role in India’s calculations. Assad’s government has consistently supported India’s position, viewing Kashmir as an internal matter rather than an international dispute. This contrasts sharply with Pakistan’s efforts to garner backing from the Islamic world. Maintaining ties with Assad bolsters India’s diplomatic leverage on this sensitive issue.
As Assad’s regime faces collapse, likely toppled by opposition forces, including groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), India confronts a precarious situation. The leader of HTS, Abu al-Jolani, has ties to extremist organizations, raising concerns about the nature of any new government in Syria. If Syria descends into further factionalism or extremism, India’s interests in the region could be jeopardized.
Analysts like Kabir Taneja highlight that India lacks a clear “Plan B” for Syria. The absence of unity among rebel groups and the possibility of prolonged conflict underscore the uncertainty of a post-Assad era. Yet, India has a track record of pragmatic diplomacy. Just as it maintained relations with Assad’s regime, it is likely to adapt and engage with whichever entity emerges as Syria’s new power center.
India’s partnership with Assad has often been criticized as contradictory to its democratic values. However, it reflects a pragmatic foreign policy driven by strategic interests rather than ideological alignment.
In the face of geopolitical realities, India has chosen stability, historical ties, and regional interests over taking a moral stand against Assad. This approach underscores the complexities of navigating a volatile region where alliances are rarely clear-cut.
As Syria enters a new chapter, India’s challenge will be to recalibrate its strategy while safeguarding its interests. Whether engaging with a fragmented opposition or a new regime, India’s priority will remain the same: ensuring stability in a region vital to its economic and geopolitical ambitions.
