Explained: The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and India's stance

In an interview with ETV Bharat's senior reporter Chandrakala Choudhury, former Indian Ambassador to Armenia Achal Malhotra explains in detail the decades-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, the recent flare-up and India's stance on the issue.

New Delhi: The worst clashes between Christian Majority Armenia and Muslim majority Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh -- a remnant of Soviet legacy that flared up once again on September 27 killing thousands, has drawn global reactions in support of both sides.

As always, South Asia too has its views about it. India, which has been maintaining a balanced relationship with its neighbouring countries, has time and again expressed concern over the resumption of hostility between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which threatens regional peace and security.

India has reiterated the need for both the sides to cease hostilities immediately, keep restraint and take all possible steps to maintain peace at the border.

Achal Malhotra, India's former ambassador to Armenia, explained the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and India's stance.

In an interview with ETV Bharat, the former envoy said, "The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is almost three decades old and one whose seeds were sown as early as July 1921 when a Christian Armenian majority autonomous enclave -- Nagorno Karabakh, was created on the territory of a Muslim majority Azerbaijan during the incorporation of the South Caucasus region into the then evolving USSR."

Since Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan were all part of the USSR for 70 years, the issue did not flare-up. Occasionally, there were several petitions from Nagorno-Karabakh to central authorities in Moscow during the next seventy years for its merger with Armenia, but they were all rejected.

"Nagorno-Karabakh's decision to declare its independence in September 1991 in the backdrop of the imminent collapse of USSR and emergence of its constituent republics as independent States resulted in a war between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, which was supported whole-heartedly by Armenia," he added.

Read:Explained: Widening Armenia, Azerbaijan conflict

"The war lasted for at least two years from 1992-1994. A ceasefire agreement was brokered in 1994 by Russia, which was the largest successor state to the Soviet Union. Since then, the United States of America, Russia, and France have engaged Armenia and Azerbaijan as co-chairs of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's (OSCE) 11-member Minsk group in a bid to find an amicable solution to the conflict. Unfortunately, they have not been able to put forth any solution which is acceptable to both the sides," he said.

"As a result, their efforts were to manage it even if it cannot resolve the conflict and make sure that it does not become a real 'flashpoint'. They failed once in 2016 when the famous 'Four Days War' between Armenia and Azerbaijan erupted in April 2016 and Russia was able to put it another control."

Malhotra underlined that the most recent flare-up on September 27 is, however, unprecedented in more than one sense: in its intensity and scale, it has surpassed all previous clashes, including the "Four Days War" in April 2016.

"One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that Turkey which so far had only extended moral support to Azerbaijan has now come out in the open and is offering direct involvement in the conflict. There are reports that Turkey is facilitating the participation of mercenaries from Syria and Libya to fight alongside Azeri forces," he pointed out.

Read:Nagorno-Karabakh fighting raises threat of deadly escalation

He said that Turkey is doing this because it is aspiring to be a leader of the global Islamic community and also a regional player. "It is perhaps challenging Saudi Arabia's leadership of the Islamic world."

"Secondly, it looks like that even Azerbaijan is now tired of the efforts being made by the International community because of what happened in 1992-1994. When the war ended, the ethnic Armenians had taken control not only of Nagorno-Karabakh but also seven surrounding districts of Azerbaijan. Armenia had also created a land corridor between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh calling it the Lachin corridor," he highlighted.

Why has there been no solution to the conflict yet?

Both Azerbaijanis and Armenians have adopted maximalist positions: Azerbaijan may at best agree to grant some autonomy to Nagorno-Karabakh within the territorial limits of Azerbaijan whereas the Armenians are unwilling to settle down for anything less than full independence.

He explained that the conflict is much more than an ethno-territorial conflict; it is a conflict between two principles: 'the principle of territorial integrity' as propounded by Azerbaijan and supported by most of the countries including India and 'the principle of Right to Self Determination,' invoked by Nagorno-Karabakh and supported by Armenia.

What is India's stand on this?

Malhotra said that India has maintained a very balanced stand, adding that, "If we compare the relation between India-Armenia on one hand and India-Azerbaijan on the other, it is seen that the political understanding between Armenia-India is far higher then what India has with Azerbaijan."

It is pertinent to note that India has received three heads of states from Armenia but none from Azerbaijan or Georgia. Armenia, on the other hand, is very explicit and extends its unequivocal support to India on the Kashmir issue whereas Azerbaijan and Turkey not only support but also promote Pakistan's narrative on the issue by raising it in a different forum.

Read:Watch: A deadly airstrike rattles Azerbaijani city

"The reason why India is not coming in open support of Armenia and thereby against Azerbaijan is that traditionally India takes a balanced view in terms of conflicts all over the world. It is the part of India's foreign policy not to take sides. In case of the present conflict too, India has adopted a balanced and best possible neutral stance," Malhotra added.

India has every reason not to support Azerbaijan who has built its case based on territorial integrity as Azerbaijan has shown trifling regard for India's territorial integrity violated by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir.

At the same time, it is difficult for India to support Armenia and publically endorse Nagorno-Karabakh's right for self-determination given the possible repercussions it can have for India as its adversaries may misuse it not only by making erroneous demands to apply it to Kashmir but also to re-ignite secessionist movement in certain parts of India.

Meanwhile, India has also expressed its support for the OSCE Minsk Group's continued efforts towards a peaceful resolution, implying that India is not in favour of the involvement of any other country, including Turkey, the ambassador explained.

Moreover, the conflict between the two countries is not going to impact India's position because India has no investment in Armenia and the trade volume is insignificant. The levels of India's trade or investment with Armenia are, however, very low. In the case of Azerbaijan, the ONGC/OVL has made relatively small investments in an oilfield project in Azerbaijan and GAIL is exploring the possibilities of cooperation in LNG. There is no direct pipeline supply of gas or oil from Azerbaijan to India.

Read:Armenia, Azerbaijan agree on ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh

No doubt, India has good ties with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The North-South international transport corridor goes from Mumbai to Chabahar via Azerbaijan to Moscow, something which is crucial for India's connectivity plans.

On the other hand, Armenia is the only country in the region with which India has a Friendship and Cooperation Treaty (signed in 1995), which incidentally would prohibit India from providing military or any other assistance to Azerbaijan in case Azerbaijan's odious in Nagorno-Karabakh dribble over to the territory of Armenia. India shares strong cultural and historical ties with Armenia.