On Sunday 8 December, the decades-long rule of Bashar al-Assad and his family in Syria ended. There is now a great deal of uncertainty in Syria. Although the Assad regime has fallen and it is known that Assad and his family have been granted asylum in Russia, it is not yet clear what kind of transition will take place. A mixed group of opposition groups led by HTS is expected to form the next government in Damascus, but there is also the possibility of a power struggle within these groups, in which case there is a risk that the political transition may not be smooth or peaceful.
One might wonder why India and Syria, some 4,000 kilometers apart, are relevant, but the opposition’s overthrow of Delhi’s long-time friend Bashar al-Assad is likely to reverberate far beyond the Middle East and affect India in unexpected ways. This is because the two countries have a long-standing friendship based on historical and cultural ties that has developed over the years, especially during Assad’s tenure. During the civil war that erupted in 2011, New Delhi took a stance in favor of resolving the conflict through a militarized, inclusive, and Syrian-led political process. Its embassy in Damascus has been and remains active. The new Syria, where the political equations may change, has the potential to affect India’s relations with Damascus, which are currently on a very slippery, chaotic, and uncertain ground, and beyond that, the dynamics of the Middle East.
India has two major investments in the Syrian oil sector: A 2004 agreement between ONGC Videsh and IPR International for oil and gas exploration, and another joint investment by India’s ONGC and China’s CNPC to acquire a 37 per cent stake in a Canadian company operating in Syria. New Delhi has also for some time sought to invest heavily in the construction of an India-Gulf-Suez Canal-Mediterranean-Levant-Europe corridor that includes Syria. And India’s close relationship with Damascus could give New Delhi the opportunity to strengthen its ties with other Middle Eastern countries more broadly… For India, maintaining stable relations with Syria and other key players in the Middle East is also vital to counter Pakistan’s rhetoric in these Muslim-majority countries…
In a statement issued on Monday 9 December, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said: “We are monitoring the situation in Syria in the light of ongoing developments. We stress that all parties should work to preserve the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Syria. We support a peaceful and inclusive Syrian-led political process that respects the interests and aspirations of all segments of Syrian society. Our Embassy in Damascus remains in touch with the Indian community for their safety and security.” On 7 December, Delhi had also warned its citizens against travelling to Syria, with Delhi’s immediate concern being the safety of its citizens in the country. According to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, there are about 90 Indians in Syria and as of yesterday (11 December) it had evacuated 75 Indian nationals, including forty-four pilgrims from Jammu and Kashmir.
Well, India clearly has no plan B for a post-Assad Syria. First, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has been India’s partner for years AND his fall from power and the uncertainty that follows is deeply worrying for India’s political and economic interests in the region. Over the past 13 years, as Syria has been torn apart by a brutal civil war and Bashar al-Assad has been isolated by many global powers for his actions, only a handful of countries have continued to work with Assad. While providing millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to the Syrian government under the name of Operation Friend to Türkiye and Syria, the Delhi government has maintained high-level contacts. The Syrian foreign minister visited India in 2023, and senior Indian diplomats also travelled to Syria. India refused to support sanctions against the Assad regime at the UN and called for an easing of sanctions during the Kovid pandemic, citing humanitarian concerns. It also argued for non-intervention by foreign powers in the Syrian civil war.
So, what was the reason for all this? Let us go from the general to the specific:
First, there is the historical context.
India and Syria have historically enjoyed friendly relations, with regular bilateral exchanges at the highest level since the establishment of diplomatic relations. Both countries have worked together for decades. Both countries were founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement. And New Delhi’s foreign policy since 1947 has generally been pro-Arab. Prime ministers such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Syria and developed close ties with its leaders. This meant that India had a personal stake in working with Syria. For example, when the Syrian civil war began in 2011, India provided $240 million for the development of the Tishreen power plant. So, this historical background with Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez al-Assad ensured that the relationship continued.
What India really wanted was stability.
Unfortunately, as is well known, the Syrian civil war started as part of the Arab Spring movement; countries across the Arab world witnessed massive popular protests calling for the overthrow of dictatorships and new democratic governments, but in some countries, such as Libya, things went terribly wrong. While Western powers supported the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, the country descended into civil war instead of becoming a stable democracy. New Delhi also wanted to ensure that Syria did not follow the same path, because India has important interests in the Middle East, from energy resources to economic investment and political relations with Middle Eastern countries, and there are around 9 million Indians living in the region. Therefore, when war broke out in Syria, New Delhi was motivated by a desire to reduce external pressure on Assad: it refused to support sanctions against Syria at the United Nations, condemned the violence perpetrated by both Assad and the rebel forces, and advocated non-intervention by foreign powers in Syria. All this was appreciated by the Assad government.
The terror dimension brought the Indian and Assad governments together.
While Delhi’s stance was appreciated by the Assad government, Bashar al-Assad, in an interview with an Indian television channel in 2017, expressed his concern over India’s confrontation with terrorism and compared the situation with Syria: “I think our independence dates back to the same period in the 1940s. Our geographies may be different, the reasons behind the terrorism that both countries face may be different. But at its core, terrorism is one and the ideologies we both face are similar. In India, terrorism is used for political purposes, and the situation in Syria is no different. It is an extremely dangerous phenomenon.”
In 2014, when ISIL was rapidly taking over large parts of Syria and establishing its own government, leading to foreign intervention, the rise of ISIL also posed a threat to India because it had tried to organize attacks there. And the Delhi government announced its support for Russia’s military offensive to destroy ISIL. Now India fears that the Russian- and Iranian-backed overthrow of Assad could embolden militants beyond the region and give a boost to anti-India militant groups operating in South Asia and Kashmir.
Now comes the crucial part: Kashmir…
Interestingly, Syria has supported India’s position on Kashmir. It has stated that Kashmir is an internal matter for India to deal with. This position of the Assad government makes Damascus a useful partner for New Delhi, as Pakistan often turns to the Islamic world for support on Kashmir. So, while Delhi supports Damascus on many international issues, including the Palestinian cause and Syria’s claim to the Golan Heights, Syria supports India’s position on Kashmir, arguing that it is an internal matter for India to resolve and that New Delhi has the right to resolve it as it sees fit. In the most recent example, while the rest of the Muslim world strongly condemned India’s decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special autonomy by abrogating Article 370 in 2019, Syria described it as India’s internal affair; Riad Abbas, Syria’s ambassador to India at the time, said: “Every government has the right to do what it wants on its territory to protect its people. We will always stand by India in any action.”
Well, isn’t there an ’emotional’ dimension? Investments…
Delhi will now also be concerned about the fate of its investments in Syria, particularly in the oil sector. Seeking to capitalize on Syria’s geostrategic location, New Delhi has been investing in Syria’s infrastructure and development for decades. We have already mentioned that it has two major investments in Syria’s oil sector and has provided a $240 million loan for the Tishreen thermal power plant project. ONGC Videsh has a 60 per cent stake in Block 24 in northern Syria, covering the Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor regions; for oil and gas exploration activities, ONGC Videsh acquired the exploration, development, and production license with IPR International in May 2004, and later ONGC India and CNPC China jointly acquired a 37 per cent stake in a Canadian company operating in Syria. Delhi has already struggled to operate in Syria due to US and EU sanctions on Syria, and the fragile situation in post-Assad Syria will make it even more difficult for these investments to become operational.
In addition, bilateral trade between the two countries will decline from more than $100 million between 2020 and 2023 to $80 million in 2024. Meanwhile, New Delhi’s Study in India programme, which has also supported capacity building for Syrian youth, offered 1,500 places for Syrian students in undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD programmes in four phases from 2017 to 2018.
Concluding remarks
India’s engagement with Syria is part of its broader strategy to increase its presence and influence in the Middle East AND operates on the logic of a quid pro quo policy of favor for favor or reciprocity. In particular, in return for Damascus’s support on issues such as Kashmir, Delhi – in addition to providing substantial development and humanitarian assistance – supports “Syria’s legitimate right to retake the occupied Golan Heights”. Israel captured the rocky Golan Heights in the Levant from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War… During a visit to Syria in 2011, then Indian President Pratibha Patil said: “India has consistently supported all Arab causes. I would also like to reiterate our dedicated support for Syria’s legitimate right to the Golan Heights and its early and full return to Syria.”
It was a rarity in the Muslim world that Syria under Assad was a staunch supporter of Delhi on Kashmir. BUT now that a new page has been turned in Syria, it is a matter of great interest, especially for India, whether this give and take, the quid pro quo, will continue. There is no doubt that New Delhi is and will continue to monitor the situation closely. And it is now taking a cautious approach to the rapidly changing events in the region, especially the complex atmosphere of a new Syria. What Damascus’s stance will be on Kashmir and where India now stands on Syria’s claim to the Golan Heights are issues that can be revisited. India’s key strategic partners are Russia and Iran, whose influence and position in the region has been severely weakened by the fall of Assad, which has significantly altered the geopolitical dynamics of the region. What should work in Delhi’s favor is that it is seen as a neutral actor in its Syria policy, something that is working for India now, as even militant non-state actors generally have no problems with India and see it as neutral.
And I have saved another crucial bonus for last:
Delhi’s concerns about the new Syrian situation have another dimension, the Turkish dimension.
While Iran and Russia were Assad’s main supporters, Western actors like the U.S were anti-Assad. And Türkiye, as an actor that has always carried the Syrian issue on its back, and never compromised on its principled stance, has been one of the major game-changing powers supporting the Syrian opposition. India was neutral – it is not in the habit of getting involved in situations that do not directly concern or affect it. New Delhi avoided taking sides in the developments in Syria, BUT in a sense, it was a ‘passive’ supporter of Assad. Now, the fall of Assad means that Delhi has lost a friend in the Muslim world.
With the vacuum of support created by Iran’s preoccupation with its own conflicts in Gaza, Hezbollah’s in Lebanon, Russia’s in Ukraine, the fall of Assad and the subsequent – perhaps short-term – possible decline of Russian and Iranian influence in Syria AND Türkiye’s support for the opposition that toppled Assad, Türkiye is on the winning side of history… Thus, reading the current situation in this way, India’s current Syria scenario is based on the assumption that Delhi’s future interaction with Damascus could be shaped by a new dynamic with Türkiye at the helm. In other words, in the event of the formation of a new Turkish-backed regime – which India sees as highly likely – it is believed that a post-Assad Syria might support Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, with the idea that it might not take Delhi’s side on India-Pakistan issues. In other words, when it comes to Türkiye, India, which unfortunately does most of its political reading through the prism of Kashmir and Pakistan, has no reservations about the current Syrian ‘Türkiye Inside’ scenario… BUT I should also mention that they are giving a lot of attention and importance to the fact that President Erdoğan did not mention Kashmir in his recent UN speech…
