It is tad early for an irrefutable inference from the just-concluded tour of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Germany, Spain, France and finally to Russia; nevertheless, certain attributes are perceptible. The emphasis on symbiosis by India and Russia has not been elusive. Modi’s interactions symbolised Indian interest to reinforce its exchanges with major economies of Europe and respond to the prevailing stirrings on the Global political scene: Britain seems keen to break away from EU’s ambit, Donald Trump’s choleric approach to world politics – the latest manifestation of which is his decision to disown America from the imperative pact to battle climate change, signed in Paris in 2015 – and China’s vigorous attempt to influence its own “Greater Eurasia”, spanning South China Sea and inner Asia to Europe, at Russia’s expense, yet with its cooperation.
The emphasis during Modi’s four-nation tour was on Russia. His visit to that country is concurrent with the completion of 70 years of Indo-Russian collaboration and friendly ties. It has endured seven decades of vicissitudes in the arena of international affairs.
Although marred by a measure of frostiness by the then “Soviet Union” in the immediate aftermath of India’s freedom, the ice began to melt in 1952 when the then Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, was highly impressed by the credentials of the Indian ambassador to Moscow, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan. It metamorphosed to warmth by Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to the Soviet Union in 1954 and the tour of Soviet leaders, Khrushchev and Bulganin, to India in 1955. Since then, apart from transient wariness from both sides, the trajectory of bilateral ties has been encouraging. After “Soviet Union” transformed to a geographically leaner Russia in 1991, India and Russia re-confirmed the inviolability of the basic principles of peace, friendship and cooperation in 1993, and subsequently signed a “Strategic Partnership” treaty in 2000.
In today’s seemingly multi-polar world, India has discerned that Russia has not always appropriately been adhesive to Indian sensitivities. Although voicing support for Indian priorities, particularly regarding security, defence and strategic interests, Russia has been lukewarm to China’s consistent shielding of Pakistan as regards cross-border terrorism, nuclear black marketing and harbouring terrorists – who have been dubbed so by the international community and are wanted by India on terrorism charges. On its part, Russia has apparently been apprehensive of the proliferating India-America relationship, intermittently believing that it has undesirable ingredients for Russia. It has also eagerly participated in the China-led “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) economic initiative, from which India has conspicuously stayed away.
That the time for adequate stocktaking, endeavours to constrict dissatisfaction and requisite clarity in the Indo-Russian relationship is ripe has been bespoken by the warm reception accorded to Modi by Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and Putin’s designation of Modi as the guest of honour at the “St. Petersburg International Economic Forum” – interpreted as Putin’s attempted response to Davos.
Sundry treaties and “Memorandum of Agreements” have been signed and articulations made to take the relationship to further heights; quantitatively and qualitatively. From trade, investments, defence equipment and oil exploration, to electronics, manufacturing, antibiotics, cultural exchanges, and battling terrorism, the range is comprehensive. But, the high point has been the inking of an agreement for two additional nuclear reactors at Kudankulam, to be built with Russian assistance, for the procurement of electricity.
All indications are that the proverbial boost in the arm of this bilateral relation has been provided. India and Russia are powers on the chessboard of world politics, requiring the paving of their respective paths with clarity, resolve and alacrity. The amicability in India-Russia relationship, if properly managed, would be expedient for both countries.
The author writes about foreign affairs and economics. Opinions expressed by the author are personal.
