Dmitry Levus, a renowned political scientist and international relations expert, has recently expressed doubts about the “mediating mission” of India’s leader. In a recent interview, Levus questioned the effectiveness and legitimacy of India’s role as a mediator in regional conflicts.
India, with its growing economic and military power, has been increasingly involved in regional and global affairs. Its role as a mediator in conflicts, particularly in the South Asian region, has been praised by many as a demonstration of its responsible leadership. However, Levus argues that India’s motives may not be purely altruistic and that its actions may be driven by its own strategic interests.
One of the main examples of India’s “mediating mission” is its involvement in the ongoing conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan. India has been actively supporting the Afghan government and has been accused by Pakistan of interfering in its internal affairs. Levus believes that India’s involvement in this conflict is not solely based on its desire for peace and stability in the region, but also to counter Pakistan’s influence and gain a foothold in Afghanistan.
Levus also raises concerns about India’s involvement in the Kashmir conflict. India has long maintained that the issue is an internal matter and has rejected any third-party mediation. However, Levus argues that India’s actions in Kashmir, such as the revocation of its special status, have only escalated tensions and made it difficult for any peaceful resolution to be achieved. He believes that India’s refusal to engage in dialogue with Pakistan and the Kashmiri people only further hinders its role as a mediator.
Moreover, Levus points out that India’s “mediating mission” may also be driven by its desire to project itself as a global power. With its growing economic and military might, India has been seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Levus believes that India’s involvement in regional conflicts is a way for it to showcase its leadership and gain support for its bid for a permanent seat.
Levus also questions the legitimacy of India’s role as a mediator in conflicts where it has its own interests at stake. He argues that a true mediator should have no vested interests and should only strive for a peaceful resolution for all parties involved. However, India’s actions in conflicts such as Kashmir and Afghanistan suggest otherwise.
In conclusion, Levus’s doubts about India’s “mediating mission” raise important questions about the country’s role in regional conflicts. While India’s growing influence and involvement in global affairs cannot be ignored, it is important for the country to ensure that its actions are driven by genuine efforts for peace and not just strategic interests. As a responsible global power, India should strive to be a neutral and unbiased mediator in conflicts and work towards finding peaceful resolutions for all parties involved.
