India-Russia relation is tried and tested: Anuradha Chenoy

India-Russia ties have weathered every challenge and will continue to be strong, says Chenoy

Anuradha Chenoy, professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and former director and chairperson, Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, tells Aditi Phadnis India-Russia ties have weathered every challenge and will continue to be strong.

Beginning this month, India and Russia are celebrating 70 years of diplomatic relations. Could you review the 70 years for us?

Seventy years of history of diplomatic relations between India-Soviet/Russia establish  the privileged and special partnership that covers strategic, defence, economic, cultural and people-to-people relation between the two countries. For both countries it is a model bilateral relationship. There is an underlying consensus across the political class, political parties, governments, academia and people in the two countries that this relation has served them both well and stood the test of time. Even as the international political system has seen many changes, many regimes in both India and Russia have changed,  the Indian-Russian relationship is tried and tested. 

Things have moved rapidly since 2000, both in India and Russia. In your view what are the landmark events in the relationship since that time?

Russia faced a decade of economic and social turmoil after Soviet disintegration in 1990. Russia  re-emerged as an important player after 2000, when President Vladimir Putin took over power. The fragmentation and crises of the Russian state started ending. Putin helped reinvigorate the Russian economy, brought back dignity and stability in Russia and has been restoring the plurality and heritage of its varied past. India has been developing at a fast pace for some decades. 

Some of the problems the two countries faced after Soviet dissolution, like the collapse of the rupee-ruble trade, problems in defence supplies, breakdown of state sector trading, were addressed by the two leaderships in a most cordial, patient, tolerant and flexible manner. This helped the making of significant Indo-Russian strategic agreements and multiple new ties in 2000. This has continued since then and in the Goa Summit multiple agreements were again signed.

Further, both Russia and India expanded their engagements with other countries. India had tried to have vigorous ties with the USA while Russia started developing close economic and political ties with China. This was seen by the other as a dilution of Russia- India ties. However, Russia and India were both committed to the construction of a multi-polar world. Russia and India have a multi vector foreign policy, which means ties between Russia and India are not diluted because of their relation with third countries.

What are the political challenges in the relationship, especially the rise of terrorism?

A common understanding of Russia and India on terrorism is that (i) the global war on terrorism should address the specific problems of terrorism of all countries. (ii) The international community should note the state-supported terrorism that affects countries like India and Russia, which emanates and is supported by third countries as “strategic assets” by these countries. (iii) This has not been adequately addressed by the global coalition against terror that focuses on the kind of terror primarily felt by the USA and Western countries. (iv) India and Russia are trying to convince the international community that distinguishing between “good” and “bad” terrorism escalates terrorism. (v) That violent interventionism that leads to the collapse of regimes (like in Iraq, Libya), results in civil conflicts and increases the possibility of terrorism. (vi) There needs to be an international convention on terrorism that addresses all forms of terrorism that are faced by states. (vii) A collective approach to all forms of terrorism.

The Indian ambassador to Russia warned that country recently about its relationship with Pakistan. This is unusual, not just because of the tone of the discourse but also because, given Russia’s history with India, that it should feel the need to get closer to Pakistan.

Russia has been facing major issues with the US and Nato in the last few years. Because of Russian policies to regain Crimea, Ukraine, now a Western ally, was broken up. Russian policy vis-à-vis Syria, stopping regime change, which was US policy, and other such Russian moves led to the imposition of unilateral sanctions on Russia. This hurt Russia economically. The Chinese saw this weakness and provided Russia with revenues by importing huge amount of oil and gas and increasing trade and signing a strategic partnership with Russia. The Chinese would like Russia to develop closer linkage with Pakistan, which is almost a client state of China. The Russians need to engage with Pakistan since i) they need new markets for their defence and other exports. ii) Because Pakistan has a big role in Afghanistan and borders Central Asia, from where the Russian and its “near abroad region” are threatened by terrorism, radical Islam, trafficking, especially of drugs. iii) Pakistan acts like a bridge with the Islamic countries and organisations like the OIC, Saudis and others, that Russia wants to link with. iv) Russia thus carried out military exercises near the Indian border with Pakistan, which is a sensitive issue with India. v) Russia would like to be part of the One Belt One Road way of China to increase its own connectivity. But since the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor could be part of this, India has strategic concerns. This might in the future affect Indian interests. Russia needs to engage with Pakistan on all these issues. So the only solution is to engage closely with Russia.

The present US administration and Russia seem to be pals. On the other hand, the US has got directly involved in a war with Syria on President Donald Trump’s orders. How should we interpret this?

US missile strikes on a Syrian airbase in Homs, in response to a chemical weapons attack on a Syrian town earlier where many people, including children died due to poisoned gas attacks, is a marker in the Trump administration’s foreign policy. It shows a renewal of US aggressive intervention in faraway conflicts. It establishes that Trump would seize a moment of emotion and anguish to jump into a fray, without investigation, if necessary, to retain US policing of international situations. It also shows that Trump would be willing to turn around from his proposal of a “different” foreign policy, where he rejected regime change — in this case on President Bashar al-Assad. Further, the priority Trump had proposed on stopping terrorist forces under the Islamic State in collaboration with Russia could be overturned.

Moscow, which had condemned the chemical attacks in Syria  earlier, argued, as did the Assad regime, that rebel and terror groups, not the Assad regime, carried out the chemical  attacks. The Russians invited the US to do a thorough investigation to establish their allegations. Meanwhile, Russia has strongly condemned US missile attacks that killed nine people, including four children. The Kremlin declared US action a violation of international law. Moscow’s reaction, in turn, shows that they are unlikely to forsake their allies and clients to better their relations with the US.

How do you see economic relations evolving between India and Russia?

India gets more than 60 per cent of its defence equipment and platforms from Russia. The strength in this is the transfer of technology that Russia does and the fact that India and Russia have agreements that equipment they develop in India can be exported to third countries. Russia is developing the Indian nuclear power sector. India has huge interests and investments in Russian hydrocarbons as Russia is a major producer. Russia has interests in supporting Indian infrastructure. 

There are weaknesses on the issue of traditional exports, ever since the Soviet dissolution. Trade between the two of $10 billion is meagre. India accounts for only 1.2 per cent of Russia’s overall trade. The leadership of both countries is making an effort to increase this, There is a Russia India free trade agreement in process and proposals for a India-Eurasian Economic Union. But radical creative measures are needed. I believe it is time to rethink the rupee-ruble trade. Russia has developed the SWIFT banking system as an alternative to the Western controlled one. The BRICS are in place with the New Development Bank and many new channels. In this context the two can begin to work out an alternative system. This is a relation with a firm foundation. It is ready to be built at new multiple heights.