Who Trusts the West?

Trust does not flow downward from former empires. It is mutual, earned, and sustained only when all sides accept the legitimacy of each other’s interests.

London Letter

By Shyam Bhatia

Western criticism of India’s continuing links with Moscow is once again growing louder. In parts of the Indian Ocean, this criticism is drawing uncomfortable comparisons with an older era when London felt entitled to decide the geopolitical fate of subject nations.

The tone of recent British commentary, sparked by Vladimir Putin’s visit to New Delhi, recalls a colonial mindset in which imperial capitals presumed the authority to instruct others on whom to trade with, whom to support, and which wars to oppose.

 To many in Mauritius, this is not just geopolitics; it is a reminder of a past in which London’s decisions routinely reshaped the lives and borders of distant communities without consultation or consent.

Mauritians know this history intimately. The island’s modern society was forged in the crucibles of slavery and indenture, both systems administered under imperial rule. For generations of enslaved Africans, freedom was denied; for the hundreds of thousands of Indian indentured labourers who arrived as from 1834, hardship and coercion were wrapped in the language of “contract” and “civilisation”.

And long after indenture ended, another act of imperial prerogative took place: the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago in the 1960s, carried out in secret to serve Anglo-American military interests, while the Chagossian people were forcibly removed from their homes. This is not ancient history. It is living memory, carried across families, courts, and collective identity.

India carries its own scars from that same era. The brutal massacre ordered by General Reginald Dyer at Amritsar in 1919 stands as one of the most notorious examples of the violence used to enforce imperial authority. It remains etched in Indian consciousness as a moment when moral superiority was loudly proclaimed by those who practised none of it. When modern Western commentators question whether India can be “trusted”, the echoes are difficult to miss. Both India and Mauritius know too well the consequences of a world in which imperial powers dictated the terms of loyalty.

These histories shape how the region interprets today’s debates. When British newspapers imply that India’s refusal to break with Moscow is a breach of trust, island nations hear an older argument resurfacing: that non-Western countries are expected to align automatically with the preferences of the former metropole, while Western states themselves reserve the right to follow their own interests wherever they lead.

The reality on the ground tells a different story. European nations still import Russian LNG; the United States remains a major purchaser of Russian uranium; several G7 economies maintain exemptions to ensure certain Russian commodities continue flowing. Yet India alone is singled out for criticism, even though it must secure affordable energy for more than a billion people.

Against this backdrop, India’s rise in the Western Indian Ocean looks very different from how it is portrayed in London. Mauritius sees a partner rooted not in conquest but in shared historical experience — through migration, religion, language, commerce and the complex legacy of indenture. It is a relationship shaped from below as much as above.

The cultural footprint that binds the two countries did not come through imperial edicts or forced displacement but through the resilience of people who crossed the ocean under harsh conditions and built new lives on this island. This gives India’s presence in the region a character distinct from that of former colonial powers.

Today, India is among the most active contributors to the region’s stability. It has become a first responder in cyclones and medical emergencies, a partner in maritime surveillance, a trainer of coast guards, a founder of digital infrastructure and blue-economy projects, and a supporter of food and pharmaceutical supply chains. It works closely with Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar on security cooperation, coordinates extensively with France, and expands economic ties with East African nations. It is also engaged in deepening cooperation with Gulf states whose influence in the region is rising rapidly.

This is not the behaviour of a country caught in Moscow’s orbit. It is the behaviour of a state determined to preserve strategic autonomy, the same autonomy that Mauritius itself has always sought.

This is why headlines such as “Can the West trust India?” ring hollow in Port Louis. The real question for the region is not whether India is reliable but whether Western governments have adapted to a world in which former colonies make independent decisions.

The expectation of automatic alignment belongs to another century, the same century that witnessed forced labour on sugar estates, massacres justified as “discipline”, and the carving up of island territories for military bases. If anyone in this region has reason to question trust, it is the states that had their destinies shaped far away, often without transparency or accountability.

Yet the British debate continues to revolve around India’s supposed unpredictability. What it rarely acknowledges is Britain’s own shifting approach to the Indian Ocean, where strategic interests have frequently overridden the rhetoric of partnership.

Even today, the United Kingdom maintains the military base at Diego Garcia under arrangements that Mauritius has long disputed, an issue that symbolises the lingering imbalance between former imperial powers and the sovereign states that succeeded them. The West expects India to shed its historical ties with Moscow overnight yet has not shown equivalent urgency in addressing the unfinished business of decolonisation within its own sphere.

Mauritius, shaped by the scars and strengths of its past, instinctively understands India’s strategic posture. In a region where multiple powers — China, France, the United States, the Gulf states — are competing for influence, no single alignment is sufficient.

Multipolarity is not a theory; it is the daily reality of maritime security, trade routes, fishing rights, climate resilience and cultural diplomacy. In this environment, what London labels “hedging” is recognised across the Indian Ocean as prudent statecraft grounded in lived experience.

So when British commentators ask whether the West can trust India, they may be asking the wrong question. For nations shaped by colonial decision-making and still navigating its consequences, the more relevant inquiry is whether the West is prepared to treat India — and its regional partners — as equal actors whose choices cannot be subordinated to someone else’s strategic comfort.

Trust does not flow downward from former empires. It is mutual, earned, and sustained only when all sides accept the legitimacy of each other’s interests.

London, December 9, 2025

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 December 2025