बेबाक · Editorial
India's Duty to Citizens Caught in Foreign Wars
With around 24 nationals still in the Russian Army and 16 dead in West Asia, the republic's first task is to count its citizens abroad and bring them home.
What has happened
A single thread runs through several newsrooms this week and deserves the citizen's attention. The Ministry of External Affairs has said it is pursuing the release of around 24 Indian nationals still serving in the Russian Army, having already brought 139 home. In a separate theatre, the government informed Parliament that 16 Indian nationals, including 10 seafarers, have died in the West Asia conflict this year, with 75 others injured. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has asked the Centre to appoint a nodal officer and assist affected families. Three distinct facts, one common truth: Indians seeking livelihood or security abroad can be caught in wars that are not theirs.
The core tension
The state must own the difficulty honestly. Diplomacy moves at the pace of foreign governments, not grieving families; nationals serving in another nation's army cannot be extracted by decree, only negotiated free. Sovereignty abroad is genuinely limited, and no office-holder can command a battlefield to yield. Yet limits are not excuses. A republic must be able to account for its own citizens in a foreign trench. The tension is between the constraints of consular power and the duty of protection at home. Neither can be wished away, and the honest state states both at full strength before it acts on either.
Steel-manning both sides
The government's defence is real and should be heard at its strongest. It cannot pull nationals from a sovereign army at will; it has secured 139 releases through engagement; and it reported the casualty figures to Parliament rather than burying them. Against this stands the harder question the families ask. How were Indians drawn into a foreign war in the first place, and did warnings and assistance reach all those at risk in time and in usable form? The Supreme Court's insistence that updates be given in vernacular languages exposes a quiet truth: families dealing with such crises may not be able to rely on English advisories or navigate an embassy without help.
The evidence
The numbers, drawn from official statements reported in the pack, carry the argument. Of the Indian nationals serving in the Russian Army, 139 have returned and around 24 remain, a ledger the MEA itself has described. In West Asia, 16 are dead and 75 injured, ten of the dead being seafarers earning wages at sea rather than bearing arms; in a separate incident, twelve Indian nationals perished in Qatar. The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to appoint a nodal officer, help families file compensation claims before the Russian Embassy here, and provide relevant information and updates in vernacular languages. Each figure is a family, and each family is a citizen the republic promised to protect.
The verdict
The considered judgement is concern, not condemnation. The state has done demonstrable work, and 139 lives returned is not a small thing. But a country's competence is measured at the margin, in the around 24 still waiting and the families now seeking compensation through formal channels. The deeper task is less only diplomacy abroad than protection at home: a system that knows where citizens are going, warns them before they leave, and stands ready when the news turns grim. The seafarer and the national in a foreign army are equally Indian, and equally owed the full weight of the state's care.
The way forward
A concrete path exists. The nodal officer the Supreme Court has asked for should become the nucleus of a durable system, not an incident-specific patch, tracking Indians in conflict zones and families seeking compensation, with updates issued in the languages those families actually read. The Union government should build a standing conflict-zone cell linking the MEA, Indian missions, shipping authorities and state governments, and Parliament should receive periodic statements whenever Indian lives are lost overseas. Recruitment and travel pathways that place citizens in foreign conflict zones must be mapped and disrupted where unlawful or deceptive, not addressed only after tragedy returns home. The republic keeps its promise by counting its citizens, and by bringing them home.
A citizen does not forfeit the protection of the republic by crossing a border in search of work.
Your Constitutional Rights
What the Constitution guarantees in this storyThe State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services.
Directive PrincipleThe right to move the Supreme Court directly to enforce fundamental rights — called by Dr Ambedkar "the heart and soul of the Constitution." The courts can issue writs such as habeas corpus and mandamus.
Fundamental RightNo person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law — read by the courts to include dignity, privacy, health, a clean environment and livelihood.
Fundamental RightThe State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Like must be treated alike; the law cannot be arbitrary.
Fundamental RightWhat this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
Join the movement
One fearless editorial at a time — in your language. Plus the constitutional Ask that must follow.
An editorial is the considered opinion of The Mudda desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions and actors; we do not endorse or attack any political party. "The Mudda's Ask" is a citizen's good-faith policy proposal, grounded in the Constitution — not the platform of any party. Translations are faithful — no fact is added in any language. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →