Which side India supports in the Syrian Civil War ?

[Mo12]

The same side as Russia!!!

 

[Levina]

Now two clear things I take out from is

1. India still considers Al Asad the Legitimate head of state , when our External Affairs ministry hold meetings with him.

If I'm not wrong Syria is one of the countries which supported India on Kashmir issue, so it should not come as a surprise that India supports Assad junior.
The other reason is, India does not want Syria to follow the path of Libya, which has become a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and if Assad is dethroned, Syria is likely to follow the same path because of the political vacuum.
Bashar is the best bet we have in that country. Dealing with the other rebel factions is like shooting ourselves in the foot. These so called rebels are the same terrorist organizations that we have been fighting in Kashmir for a long time.

2. The use of word terrorism over ISIS, this does indicate India's stance over "Moderate Terrorists of West ".

What else would you call ISIS?
ISIS is hiring Indian youth and training them against India? I can not think of a better term other than terrorism.
You know what? I really want India to maintain its neutral stance. It has helped India on many occasions for example in yemen, countries like US could not rescue their citizens, and they had to take help from neutral countries like India.
Declaring a war against India would give a few galoots, within India and outside India, the chance to label it anti-Islam.
Anyways, India cant afford a war.

 

[Anubis]

How is a theocratic dictatorship legitimate?

 

[anant_s]

If I'm not wrong Syria is one of the countries which supported India on Kashmir issue, so it should not come as a surprise that India supports Assad junior.

Do you see parallel in this policy when India supported Military Junta in Burma while at the same time remaining vocal supporter of Aung san suu Kyi?
+++
I suppose any diplomatic policy adopted by India in the region would be having one major consideration, spread of ISIS.
I get a feeling, we believe longer ISIS is involved in the regional conflicts, lesser are chances of its threat elsewhere in focused manner.

 

[Levina]

Do you see parallel in this policy when India supported Military Junta in Burma while at the same time remaining vocal supporter of Aung san suu Kyi?

Aung San was a friend of Nehru, who got educated in India. From what I know India switched away from supporting pro-democracy forces because of a mooted gas pipeline from Burma which will (ostensibly) be beneficial for north eastern part of India. China and India, both, are competiting for access to the country’s natural resources.

I get a feeling, we believe longer ISIS is involved in the regional conflicts, lesser are chances of its threat elsewhere in focused manner.

ISIS's army isnt limited to Syria.They have a larger reach, we are talking about transnational terrorism here.
So far they have been successful in remote controlling youth in china and Europe, add to it the fact that their financiers are not limited to middle east. So despite being involved in regional conflicts, ISIS will continue to spread its tentacles around the globe. The hydra headed monster!
I'm glad India doesnt segregate moderate "opposition" from terrorists. Afaik, the boys from "moderate opposition" mutilated the body of a RuAF pilot.
What i've observed is that India has so far maintained an ambiguous policy against ISIS. The reason why our leaders are not very vociferous about ISIS is the fact that there are a lot of Indians working in syria. Its a catch 22 situation for India where we supoort Assad, but we would not join his war against ISIS in Syria. Albeit India has joined the war in a limited capacity. I believe Syria views India as a potential influence but a silent friend.