UN resolution on Libya and India's identity crisis

On 17 March 2011 India abstained during a vote over adoption of UN resolution 1973 approving a no-fly zone over Libya. Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia were the five members who abstained from voting. Interestingly, China and Russia had the veto power to stall the resolution, which they did not use. If they really wanted they could have stopped it. The reasons to abstain are very clear for each of these five except India. Russia has a big business with 'Libya headed by Gaddafi'. On the other hand Russia understands that Gaddafi has done a lot of wrong things and he is no longer a legitimate ruler. China does not want multinational forces to start meddling into domestic tensions and human rights violation. This would set a precedence which could create trouble for China in future. They did not block it as per requests from its Arab friends. Germany is well known for its resistance to use of aggressive multinational military forces. Germany still considers there could be a peaceful way out of the crisis. Germany is so clear on its stance that it does not mind going against NATO, UN and EU to defend its policy. Brazil thinks that UN resolution 1970 (2011) has not yet been implemented properly and it is too early to seek another one. It might be a smokescreen as Brazil is expecting Libyan Sovereign Fund LAFICO to invest in Brazil. India does not have any clear reason to abstain. All that Indian representative said was that there were very little information. This is a complete nonsense. India, in my views, did not know what to choose. For the last two decades India is running an opportunistic external politics. Indian government does not know what India stands for. Whether it was taking side with US over Iran, confusion over Iraq, anti-people and pro-monarchy stand in Nepal, or a vague BRIC-ism over Libya, India is not led by a value system.

If India stands for democracy and human rights then India must have voted in favour of resolution over Libya. If India was about defending its friends then India should have voted against. Abstention does not articulate anything. What Manjeev Singh Puri has said is lacking substance.

India is suffering very badly from an national identity crisis based on values. That is why our stances are so conflicting. It will be great if we choose the words written in the preamble of our constitution as our national values:

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PREAMBLE

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the 4[unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

We shall have such a just foreign policy if these words are followed.